Rollins v. Colvin

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND

          HONORABLE JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         On January 29, 2016, Stacy Lynn Rollins (“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; February 3, 2016 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 August 7, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability on November 30, 2011, due to three bulging discs, thyroid problems, and high cholesterol. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 32, 160, 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 November 26, 2013. (AR 45-75).

         On March 7, 2014, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 32-40). Specifically, the ALJ found: (1) plaintiff suffered from one severe impairment, disorder of the lumbar spine (AR 34); (2) plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments which met or medically equaled a listed impairment (AR 35); (3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work (20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b)) with additional limitations^[1] (AR 35); (4) plaintiff could not perform any past relevant work (AR 38); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, specifically cashier II, assembler (small products), and assembler (electrical accessories) (AR 38-39); and (6) plaintiff’s allegations regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of subjective symptoms were not entirely credible (AR 37).

         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 ...