Beingesser v. Colvin

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND

          HONORABLE JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         On July 10, 2015, Craig Matthew Beingesser (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of plaintiff’s application for benefits. The parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, respectively (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) and (“Defendant’s Motion”). The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7-15; July 14, 2015 Case Management Order ¶ 5.

         Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order of Remand.

         II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE

         DECISION

         On July 17, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability on October 26, 2010, due to chronic lower back pain, sleep apnea, depression, spondylolisthesis, arthritis, and inability to walk for more than five minutes. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 10, 107, 132). The ALJ examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) and a vocational expert on January 6, 2014. (AR 21-44).

         On April 2, 2014, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 10-16). Specifically, the ALJ found: (1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: disorder of the spine with radiculopathy, spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, and obesity (AR 12); (2) plaintiff’s impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment (AR 13); (3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work (20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b)) with additional limitations^[1] (AR 14); (4) plaintiff could not perform any past relevant work (AR 16); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, specifically production assembler, electronics worker, and bench assembler (AR 16-17); and (6) plaintiff’s allegations regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of subjective symptoms were not entirely credible (AR 15).

         The Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s application for review. (AR 1).

         III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Sequential Evaluation Process

         To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that the claimant is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The impairment must render the claimant incapable of performing the work the claimant previously performed and incapable of performing any other substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)).

         In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ is required to use the following five-step sequential evaluation process:

(1) Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If ...