United States District Court, E.D. California
CYNTHIA J. CROKER, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her
application for a period of disability and Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Titles II 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.
filed an application for a period of disability and DIB,
alleging that he had been disabled since June 30, 2005.
Administrative Record (“AR”) 148-155.
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. Id. at 77-81, 83-88. On October 9,
2014, a hearing was held before administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) David M. Blume. Id. at 37-56.
Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing, at which
she and a vocational expert testified. Id.
December 29, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding that
plaintiff was not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d)
of the Act. Id. at 22-32. The ALJ made the
following specific findings:
1. The claimant last met the insured status requirements of
the Social Security Act on December 31, 2010.
2. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful
activity during the period from her alleged onset date of
June 30, 2005 through her date last insured of December 31,
2010 (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. Through the date last insured, the claimant had the
following severe impairments: right knee internal derangement
and depression (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).
* * *
4. Through the date last insured, the claimant did not have
an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR
404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).
* * *
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find
that, through the date last insured, the claimant had the
residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined
in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except she could perform detailed but
not complex tasks.
* * *
6. Through the date last insured, the claimant was capable of
performing past relevant work as a collection agent. This
work did not require the performance of work-related
activities precluded by the claimant's residual
functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565).
* * *
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, at any time from June 30, 2005,
the alleged onset date, through December 31, 2010, the ...