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.

Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 27, 2017

KEVIN VOUA LEE, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court are plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12) and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15).

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff applied for social security benefits on May 30, 2008. In the application, plaintiff claimed that disability began on March 15, 2008. Plaintiff's claim was initially denied. Following denial of reconsideration, plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, which was held on July 7, 2010, before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) T. Patrick Hannon. In a September 9, 2010, decision, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is not disabled based on the following relevant findings:

1. The claimant has the following severe impairment(s): Gout, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD);
2. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an impairment listed in the regulations;
3. The claimant has the following residual functional capacity: the claimant can perform sedentary work; plaintiff has moderate difficulty in understanding and carrying out complex instructions but has no difficulty in carrying out simple and repetitive tasks consistent with unskilled work; and
4. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, residual functional capacity, and the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

         The Appeals Council declined review on August 26, 2011, and plaintiff sought judicial review.

         In Lee v. Astrue, 1:11-CV-1789-GSA, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. A second hearing has held before the ALJ Danny Pittman on December 3, 2013. At the hearing, plaintiff amended the alleged onset date to January 1, 2010. In a February 10, 2014, decision, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is not disabled based on the following relevant findings:

1. The claimant has the following severe impairment(s): Gout, rheumatoid arthritis, and depressive disorder;
2. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an impairment listed in the regulations;
3. The claimant has the following residual functional capacity: the claimant can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand and/or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour day, and sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour day; he can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb, and frequently handle, finger, and feel; he would be limited to simple routine tasks; and
4. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, residual functional capacity, and vocational expert testimony, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the ...

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.