United States District Court, E.D. California
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his
applications for a period of disability and Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI
of the Social Security Act. The parties' cross-motions
for summary judgment are pending. Also pending is the
court's September 1, 2016 order to show cause why
sanctions should not be imposed for the Commissioner's
failure to timely file her motion for summary judgment. ECF
No. 19. For the reasons discussed below, the order to show
cause is discharged, plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is granted, the Commissioner's motion is denied,
and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
court approved the parties' stipulation to extend the
date for the Commissioner to file her cross-motion for
summary judgment and ordered the Commissioner to file her
motion by August 15, 2016. ECF No. 18. The Commissioner
failed to do so and was ordered to show cause why sanctions
should not be imposed for violation of that order. ECF No.
19. In response, counsel for the Commissioner explains that
the failure to timely file the motion was due to a
calendaring error. ECF No. 20. Counsel also has taken
responsibility for the error, apologized for the violation of
the order, and assured the court that additional measures
have been implemented to ensure compliance with court orders.
light of those representations, the order to show cause is
discharged and no sanctions are imposed.
filed applications for a period of disability, DIB, and SSI,
alleging that he had been disabled since December 15, 2011.
Administrative Record (“AR”) 176-189.
Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon
reconsideration. Id. at 113-118, 120-125. On
December 11, 2013, a hearing was held before administrative
law judge (“ALJ”) Dante M. Alegre. Id.
at 28-64. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the
hearing, at which he and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified. Id.
22, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff
was not disabled under sections 216(i), 223(d), and
1614(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Id. at 15-23. The ALJ made the
following specific findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through September 30, 2014.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since December 15, 2011, the alleged onset date (20
CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pancreatitis (20 CFR
404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
* * *
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526,
416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
* * *
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) with the following
limitations: lift and/or carry twenty pounds occasionally and
ten pounds frequently; sit, stand, or walk for six hours each
in an eight-hour day; but should avoid concentrated exposure
to fumes, dusts, gases, and odors.
* * *
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work
as a recycle laborer, as actually performed, and warehouse
supervisor, as described in the DOT. This work does not
require the performance of work-related activities precluded
by the claimant's residual functional capacity (20 CFR
404.1565 and 416.965).
* * *
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from December 15, 2011, through
the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(f) and
Id. at 17-23.
request for Appeals Council review was denied on September
22, 2015, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final
decision of the Commissioner. Id. at 1-6.
Commissioner's decision that a claimant is not disabled
will be upheld if the findings of fact are supported by
substantial evidence in the record and the proper legal
standards were applied. Schneider v. Comm'r of the
Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2000);
Morgan v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., ...