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.

De Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 9, 2017

ESTELA GOMEZ DE RAMOS, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL (ECF NOS. 17, 18, 19)

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Estella Gomez De Ramos (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.[1]

         Plaintiff suffers from headache, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and a history of arachnoid cyst. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Social Security appeal shall be denied.

         II.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff protectively filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on September 10, 2009. (AR 342.) Plaintiffs applications were initially denied on January 13, 2010, and denied upon reconsideration on July 12, 2010. (AR 122-125, 129-133.) Plaintiff requested and received a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Mary Parnow. Plaintiff appeared for a hearing on November 17, 2011. (AR 71-94.) On March 29, 2012, Plaintiff was found to be not disabled. (AR 97-111.) On September 4, 2013, the appeals counsel remanded this action to the administrative law judge. (AR 117-120.)

         On remand, Plaintiff appeared for a hearing on January 16, 2014, before Administrative Law Judge Danny Pittman (“the ALJ”) which was continued for Plaintiff to obtain a neurological consultative examination. (AR 66-70.) Plaintiff appeared for a second hearing on July 10, 2014. (AR 34-64.) On September 15, 2014, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. (AR 12-26.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review on March 22, 2016. (AR 5-7.)

         A. ALJ Findings

         The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

• Plaintiff last met the insured status requirements on December 31, 2013.
• Plaintiff did not engage in any substantial gainful activity from the alleged onset date of October 15, 2008 through the date last insured, December 31, 2013.
• Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment.
• Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with the following nonexertional limitations: Plaintiff needs to avoid extreme noise and is limited to simple, routine tasks.
• Through the date last insured, Plaintiff was capable of performing her past relevant work as a fruit and vegetable harvest worker.
• Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from October 13, 2008 through December 31, 2013.

(AR 17-25.)

         B. Relevant Medical Record

         Plaintiff had a gynecological examination on May 9, 2008. (AR 513.) Plaintiff was seen on August 7, 2008, after having been stung by a bee and being put on antibiotics ...


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.