United States District Court, E.D. California
ANTHONY W. BRASWELL, 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 his
application for Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's
motion is granted, the Commissioner's motion is denied,
and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
filed an application for SSI, alleging that he had been
disabled since August 22, 2006. Administrative Record
(“AR”) 228-236. His application was denied
initially and upon reconsideration. Id. at 110-115,
118-123. On March 3, 2014, a hearing was held before
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) L. Kalei Fong.
Id. at 47-79. Plaintiff was represented by counsel
at the hearing, at which he and a vocational expert
13, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff
was not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the
Id. at 27-41. The ALJ made the following specific
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since July 23, 2012, the amended onset date (20 CFR
416.971 et seq.).
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: bipolar
disorder with psychotic features; depressive disorder;
antisocial personality disorder; cannabis dependency; alcohol
and amphetamine dependency in partial remission; degenerative
disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine; and
degenerative joint disease of the feet (20 CFR 416.920(c)).
* * *
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed 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 the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 416.967(b) in that he can stand and walk for six hours of
an eight hour day; sit for six hours of an eight hour day;
can lift and carry twenty five pounds frequently and
occasionally; can frequently balance, bend, crouch, crawl,
kneel, stoop, climb; can frequently interact with supervisors
and co-workers but rarely with the public - generally he must
avoid public contact; he can maintain concentration,
persistence and pace for simple repetitive tasks in a
non-competitive work environment with little to no changes in
* * *
5. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965).
6. The claimant was born [in] 1963 and was 49 years old,
which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the
date the application was filed. The claimant subsequently
changed age category to closely approaching advanced age but
he [sic] undersigned finds no good cause to apply the age
rules non-mechanically (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 because the
claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR 416.968).
9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant number in the national economy that
the claimant could perform (20 CFR 416.969 and 416.969(a)).
* * *
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, since February 23, 2012, the date
the application was filed (20 CFR 416.920(g) .
Id. at 29-40.
request for Appeals Council review was denied on October 26,
2015, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision of
the Commissioner. Id. at 3-8.