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.

Antwerp v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 27, 2017

CRYSTAL LYNN VAN ANTWERP, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This social security action was submitted to the court without oral argument for ruling on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.[1]Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge's findings with respect to Listing 12.05C, residual functional capacity, and plaintiff's subjective testimony were erroneous. For the reasons explained below, plaintiff's motion is denied, defendant's cross-motion is granted, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) is affirmed.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On February 2, 2010, plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), alleging disability beginning on September 1, 2009. (Transcript (“Tr”) at 105-11.) Plaintiff's application was denied initially, (id. at 66-70), and upon reconsideration. (Id. at 76-81.) Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ)”, and on October 13, 2011, an ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled. (Id. at 20-27.) On April 18, 2013, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's October 13, 2011 decision. (Id. at 1-3.)

         Plaintiff filed a civil action in this court on June 13, 2013. (Id. at 588.) On July 29, 2014, the court issued an order approving the parties' stipulation to remand the matter for further administrative proceedings. (Id. at 592-93.)

         On June 4, 2015, plaintiff appeared at yet another administrative hearing before an ALJ. (Id. at 549-86.) Plaintiff was represented by an attorney and testified at the administrative hearing. (Id. at 549-50.) The ALJ issued a partially favorable decision on July 29, 2015, finding that plaintiff became disabled on January 8, 2015. (Id. at 542.) The ALJ entered the following findings:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date (20 CFR 416.971 et seq.).
2. Since the alleged onset date of disability, September 1, 2009, the claimant has had the following severe impairments: generalized anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), borderline intellectual functioning, Marfan Syndrome, bilateral hallux valgus and pes planus, bilateral subtalar degenerative joint disease, status post right anterior cruciate ligament repair with early patellofemoral arthrosis, obesity, and myofascial pain of the low back (20 CFR 416.920(c)).
3. Since the alleged onset date of disability, September 1, 2009, the claimant has not had 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 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that prior to January 8, 2015, the date the claimant became disabled, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform simple, unskilled work in an (sic) nonpublic setting with occasional fellow employee contact. Beginning on January 8, 2015, the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work in a nonpublic setting with occasional fellow employee contact. She is frequently unable to perform work activities on a consistent basis due to interruptions from psychologically based symptoms.
5. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965).
6. Prior to the established disability onset date, the claimant was a younger individual age 18-49. The claimant's age category has not changed since the established disability onset date (20 CFR 416.963).
7. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964).
8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case because the claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR 416.968).
9. Prior to January 8, 2015, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant could have performed (20 CFR 416.969 and 416.969a).
10. Beginning on January 8, 2015, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are no jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 416.960(c) and 416.966).
11. The claimant was not disabled prior to January 8, 2015, but became disabled on that date and has continued to be disabled through the date of this decision (20 CFR 416.920(g)).

(Id. at 532-42.)

         Plaintiff sought judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) by filing the complaint in this action on October 6, 2015. (ECF No. 1.)

         LEGAL STANDARD

         “The district court reviews the Commissioner's final decision for substantial evidence, and the Commissioner's decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a ...


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.