United States District Court, E.D. California
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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.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.
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.)
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.
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
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date (20 CFR 416.971 et
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
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
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
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
(Id. at 532-42.)
sought judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) by
filing the complaint in this action on October 6, 2015. (ECF
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