United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL
(ECF NOS. 17, 18, 19)
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.
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
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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.
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.)
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
• 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
• Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in the
Social Security Act, at any time from October 13, 2008
through December 31, 2013.
Relevant Medical Record
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 ...