United States District Court, C.D. California
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 ...