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.

Manriquez v. Berryhill

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 3, 2017

ERNEST MANRIQUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          KAREN E. SCOTT United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Ernest Maniquez (“Plaintiff”) appeals the final decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying his application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits (“DIB”). For the reasons discussed below, the ALJ's decision is AFFIRMED.

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff applied for DIB on February 24, 2014, alleging disability commencing August 6, 2013. Administrative Record (“AR”) 102-105. An ALJ conducted a hearing on August 18, 2014, at which Plaintiff, who was represented by an attorney, appeared and testified. AR 35-67.

         On March 27, 2015, the ALJ issued a written decision denying Plaintiff's request for benefits. AR 16-33. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: deep venous thrombosis; villous adenocarcinoma of the rectum, status post excision of the transanal lesion; hypertension; diabetes mellitus; and diverticulosis. AR 14. Notwithstanding his impairments, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work with the following additional limitations: he can lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; he can stand and walk, with normal breaks, for six hours in an eight-hour workday; he can sit, with normal breaks, for six hours in an eight-hour workday; and he can occasionally climb, balance, kneel, crouch, crawl, and stoop. AR 15. Based on this RFC and the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ found that Plaintiff could return to his past relevant work as a purchasing agent and marketing representative. AR 18. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled. Id.

         II.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. The ALJ's findings and decision should be upheld if they are free from legal error and are supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401; Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). It is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1035 (citing Robbins v. Comm'r of SSA, 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, the reviewing court “must review the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's conclusion.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). “If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing, ” the reviewing court “may not substitute its judgment” for that of the Commissioner. Id. at 720-21.

         In determining a claimant's RFC, the ALJ should consider those limitations for which there is support in the record, but the ALJ need not consider properly rejected evidence of subjective complaints. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Preparing a function-by-function analysis for medical conditions or impairments that the ALJ found neither credible nor supported by the record is unnecessary.”); Batson v. Comm'r of SSA, 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The ALJ was not required to incorporate evidence from the opinions of Batson's treating physicians, which were permissibly discounted.”).

         “A decision of the ALJ will not be reversed for errors that are harmless.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). Generally, an error is harmless if it either “occurred during a procedure or step the ALJ was not required to perform, ” or if it “was inconsequential to the ultimate non-disability determination.” Stout v. Comm'r of SSA, 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006).

         III.

         ISSUES PRESENTED

         Plaintiff raises one claim of error: that the ALJ did not properly consider Plaintiff's testimony. Joint Stipulation (“JS”) at 4.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         A. The ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff's ...


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.