United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff
filed a complaint on January 7, 2016, seeking review of the
Commissioner’s denial of benefits. The parties
consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge
on February 24, 2016. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment on June 14, 2016. Defendant filed a motion for
summary judgment on July 11, 2016. The Court has taken the
motions under submission without oral argument. See
L.R. 7-15; “, ” filed January 11, 2016.
BACKGROUND
AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Plaintiff
sought disability insurance benefits, asserting she has been
disabled ever since she fell at work in July of 2005
(Administrative
Record (“A.R.”) 39-47, 195). Plaintiff’s
last insured date was September 30, 2009 (A.R. 23, 199). The
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) examined the
documents in the record and heard testimony from Plaintiff
and a vocational expert (A.R. 21-465). The ALJ found certain
severe impairments, including “degenerative disc
disease of the right knee” and “degenerative disc
disease of the lumbar spine” (A.R. 23). The ALJ also
found, however, that through at least September 30, 2009,
Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to
perform a limited range of light work (A.R. 23-24). The ALJ
determined that this functional capacity would have permitted
the performance of Plaintiff’s past relevant work (A.R.
25). The Appeals Council denied review (A.R. 7-9).
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
Under
42 U.S.C. section 405(g), this Court reviews the
Administration’s decision to determine if: (1) the
Administration’s findings are supported by substantial
evidence; and (2) the Administration used correct legal
standards. See Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d
1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008); Hoopai v. Astrue, 499
F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Brewes v.
Commissioner, 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012).
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 401 (1971) (citation and quotations omitted); see
also Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.
2006).
If the evidence can support either outcome, the court may not
substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. But the
Commissioner’s decision cannot be affirmed simply by
isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. Rather,
a court must consider the record as a whole, weighing both
evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the
[administrative] conclusion.
Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.
1999) (citations and quotations omitted).
DISCUSSION
After
consideration of the record as a whole, Defendant’s
motion is granted and Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The
Administration’s findings are supported by substantial
evidence and are free from material[1] legal error.
Plaintiff’s contrary arguments are unavailing.
A
social security claimant bears the burden of “showing
that a physical or mental impairment prevents [her] from
engaging in any of [her] previous occupations.”
Sanchez v. Secretary, 812 F.2d 509, 511 (9th Cir.
1987); accord Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146
n.5 (1987). Plaintiff must prove her impairments prevented
her from working for twelve continuous months. See
Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 218-25 (2002);
Krumpelman v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 586, 589 (9th Cir.
1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1025 (1986). Plaintiff
“must demonstrate [she] was disabled prior to [her]
last insured date.” Morgan v. Sullivan, 945
F.2d 1079, 1080 (9th Cir. 1991); see 42 U.S.C.
§ 416(i)(2)(C), 416(i)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. 404.131; see
also Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir.
2001); Flaten v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 44 F.3d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir. 1995) (where
claimants apply for benefits after the expiration of their
insured status based on a current disability, the claimants
“must show that the current disability has existed
continuously since some time on or before the date their
insured status lapsed”). Substantial evidence supports
the conclusion Plaintiff failed to carry her burden in this
case.
Significantly,
no physician opined Plaintiff was totally disabled prior to
her last insured date. See Matthews v. Shalala, 10
F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (in upholding the
Administration’s decision, the Court emphasized:
“None of the doctors who examined [claimant] expressed
the opinion that he was ...