Roland v. Colvin

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

         I. PROCEEDINGS

         Plaintiff filed this action on September 4, 2016, seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) payments. The parties filed Consents to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on October 7, 2015, and November 12, 2015. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation on May 19, 2016, that addresses their positions concerning the disputed issues in the case. The Court has taken the Joint Stipulation under submission without oral argument.

         II. Background

         Plaintiff was born on August 30, 1964. [Administrative Record (“AR”) at 38, 192, 199.] She has past relevant work experience as a food cashier, inventory clerk, shipping and receiving clerk, and detailer. [AR at 38, 58.]

         On May 24, 2013, plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and DIB, and an application for SSI payments, alleging in both that she has been unable to work since May 15, 2011.^[1] [AR at 192-98, 199-205.] After her applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration, plaintiff timely filed a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). [AR at 30, 141.] A hearing was held on October 21, 2014, at which time plaintiff appeared without representation, and testified on her own behalf. [AR at 44-65.] A vocational expert (“VE”), and plaintiff’s sister, also testified. [AR at 56-60, 61-65.] On October 27, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision concluding that plaintiff was not under a disability from May 12, 2012, the alleged onset date, through October 27, 2014, the date of the decision. [AR at 30-39.] Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council. [AR at 24-26.] When the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review on July 13, 2015 [AR at 1-6], the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. See Sam v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citations omitted). This action followed.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court has authority to review the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based upon the application of improper legal standards. Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

         “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998) (same). When determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner’s decision, the Court examines the administrative record as a whole, considering adverse as well as supporting evidence. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s decision should be upheld.” Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (“If the evidence can support either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s conclusion, [the reviewing court] may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ.”) (citation omitted).

         IV. THE EVALUATION OF DISABILITY

         Persons are “disabled” for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits if they are unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity owing to a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or which has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).

         A. THE FIVE-STEP EVALUATION PROCESS

         The Commissioner (or ALJ) follows a five-step sequential evaluation process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended April 9, 1996. In the first step, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. Id. If the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, the second step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting her ability to do basic work activities; if not, a finding of nondisability is made and the claim is denied. Id. If the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments, the third step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment in the Listing of Impairments (“Listing”) set forth at 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1; if so, disability is conclusively presumed and benefits are awarded. Id. If the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments does not meet or equal an impairment in the Listing, the fourth step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has sufficient “residual functional capacity” to perform her past work; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. Id. The claimant has the burden of proving that she is unable to perform past relevant work. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. If the claimant meets this burden, a prima facie case of disability is established. Id. The Commissioner then bears the burden of establishing that the claimant is not disabled, because she can perform other substantial gainful work available in the national economy. Id. The determination of this issue comprises the fifth and final step in the sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Lester, 81 F.3d at 828 n.5; Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257.

         B. THE ALJ’S APPLICATION OF THE FIVE-STEP PROCESS

         At step one, the ALJ found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 12, 2012, the alleged onset date.^[2] [AR at 32.] At step two, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff has the severe impairments of degenerative disc disease; depressive disorder; bipolar disorder; and sciatica of the right leg. [Id.] The ALJ found the following impairments to be non-severe: history of ethanol, THC, and cocaine abuse, in remission; history of Bell’s palsy; and eczema. [AR at 32-33.] At step three, the ALJ determined that plaintiff does not have an impairment or a combination of impairments that meets or medically equals any of the impairments in the Listing. [AR at 33.] The ALJ further found that plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”)^[3] to perform a limited range of medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(c), 416.967(c), ^[4] as follows:

[C]an lift and/or carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently; can stand and/or walk for six hours out of an eight-hour workday; can sit for six hours out of an eight-hour workday; unlimited ability to push and pull; can only frequently climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; can frequently stoop; moderately limited in maintaining social functioning and maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace, such that the individual would need to [avoid]^[5] work with the public that requires more than superficial contact; and would only be able to do simple, repetitive work, where that work did not involve extended periods of concentration.

[AR at 34.] At step four, based on plaintiff’s RFC and the testimony of the VE, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is unable to perform any of her past relevant work as a fast food cashier, inventory clerk, shipping and receiving clerk, and detailer. [AR at 38, 58-59.] At step five, based on plaintiff’s RFC, vocational factors, and the VE’s testimony, the ALJ found that there are jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform, including work as a “garment folder” (Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) No. 789.687-066), “seam presser” (DOT No. 789.687-166), and “small parts assembler” (DOT No. 929.587-010). [AR at 39, 59-60.] Accordingly, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled at any time from the alleged onset date of May 12, 2012, through October 27, 2014, the date of the decision. [AR at 39.]

         V. THE ALJ’S DECISION

         Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred when he: (1) rejected the opinions of plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Mehar Gill, M.D.; and (2) rejected plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. [Joint Stipulation (“JS”) at 4.] As set forth below, ...