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.

Cali v. Berryhill

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 4, 2017

JACLYN DELICE CALI, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [1] Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND

          JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         On September 6, 2016, Jaclyn Delice Cali (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of plaintiff's application for benefits. The parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, respectively (“Plaintiff's Motion”) and (“Defendant's Motion”). The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7-15; September 7, 2016 Case Management Order ¶ 5.

         Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order of Remand.

         II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

         On August 17, 2011, plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning on February 16, 2011, due to trigeminal neuralgia, supraventricular tachycardia (svt), depression, and restless leg syndrome. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 12, 140, 164).

         On October 24, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision (“Pre-Remand Decision”). (AR 12-22). The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review of the Pre-Remand Decision. (AR 1).

         On January 28, 2015, a different United States Magistrate Judge entered judgment reversing and remanding the case for further proceedings because the ALJ had improperly evaluated plaintiff's subjective complaints. (AR 401-13). The Appeals Council in turn remanded the case for a new hearing. (AR 414-16). On remand, the ALJ held a hearing on April 14, 2016 (“Post-Remand Hearing”), during which the ALJ heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) and a vocational expert. (AR 305-37).

         On May 26, 2016, the ALJ again determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision (“Post-Remand Decision”). (AR 288-99). Specifically, the ALJ found: (1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: anxiety, asthma, depression, hypertension, migraine headaches, and trigeminal neuralgia (AR 290); (2) plaintiff's impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment (AR 290-91); (3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform work at all exertional levels with additional nonexertional limitations[2] (AR 292); (4) plaintiff could not perform any past relevant work (AR 297); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, specifically receptionist, appointment clerk, and general clerk (AR 298); and (6) plaintiff's statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of subjective symptoms were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record” (AR 292).

         III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Sequential Evaluation Process

         To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that the claimant is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The impairment must render the claimant incapable of performing the work the claimant previously performed and incapable of performing any other substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)).

         In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ is required to use the following five-step sequential evaluation process:

(1) Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step two.
(2) Is the claimant's alleged impairment sufficiently severe to limit the claimant's ability to work? If not, the claimant is not disabled. If so, proceed to step three.
(3) Does the claimant's impairment, or combination of impairments, meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listings”)? If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, proceed to step four.
(4) Does the claimant possess the residual functional capacity to perform claimant's past relevant work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five.
(5) Does the claimant's residual functional capacity, when considered with the claimant's age, education, and work experience, allow the claimant to adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled.

Stout v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. ...


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.