Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robertson v. Colvin

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 29, 2016

QUINN VICTOR ROBERTSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND

          HONORABLE JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I.SUMMARY

         On October 15, 2015, Quinn Victor Robertson (“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; October 20, 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 March 22, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning on August 1, 2001 (“original onset date”) due to severe neuralgia, spinal cord stimulator implant, emphysema, pain, depression, severe lower abdominal neuralgia, medication psychosis and side effects, impotency, stress, depression, and arthritis. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 13, 146, 183).

         The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) and a vocational expert on December 9, 2013. (AR 27-55). At the administrative hearing, plaintiff’s alleged onset date was amended to October 8, 2009 (“amended onset date”). (AR 34, 51-52).

         In an administrative decision dated March 25, 2014, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled from the original onset date (i.e., August 1, 2001) through March 31, 2010 (i.e., the “date last insured”). (AR 13-22). Specifically, the ALJ found that through the date last insured: (1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: bilateral inguinal hernia repair with secondary pain, and erectile dysfunction (AR 15); (2) plaintiff’s impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment (AR 15-16); (3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of medium work (20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c)) with no heavy lifting (AR 16); (4) plaintiff was not capable of performing any past relevant work (AR 20); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, specifically Production Assembler, Bench Assembler, and Electronics Worker (AR 21); and (6) plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the subjective symptoms plaintiff alleged, but plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of such subjective symptoms were not entirely credible (AR 17).

         The Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s application for review. (AR 2).

         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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.