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.

Carroll v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 30, 2017

ALICE MARIE CARROLL, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her 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 have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, the Commissioner's motion is denied, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability, DIB, and SSI, alleging that she had been disabled since April 29, 2007. Administrative Record (“AR”) 220-236. Her applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Id. at 135-142, 146-150. On August 21, 2013, a hearing was held before administrative law judge (“ALJ”) L. Kalei Fong. Id. at 39-82. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing, at which she and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. Id.

         On October 31, 2013, 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.[1] Id. at 22-33. The ALJ made the following specific findings:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through March 31, 2010. The claimant has not established disability on or prior to March 31, 2010.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 29, 2007, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
* * *
3. The claimant has the following severe impairment: anxiety (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 a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: due to her anxiety, she is limited to performing simple repetitive tasks. She is able to frequently interact with supervisors, occasionally interact with co-workers, and minimally interact with the public. She needs to avoid jobs that include hazards (e.g., heights and machinery). She is able to maintain concentration and pace to perform simple repetitive tasks. She needs to avoid any type of competitive fast-paced jobs.
* * *
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (work performed in the past 15 years, performed long enough to learn, and performed as substantial gainful activity) (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
* * *
7. The claimant was born [in] 1966 and was 41 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or not the claimant has transferable job ...

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.