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.

Meadows v. Berryhill

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 9, 2017

AMBER SUMMER MARIE MEADOWS, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff filed this action on November 15, 2016. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 13.) On May 30, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (“JS”) that addressed the disputed issues. The court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument.

         Having reviewed the entire file, the court reverses the decision of the Commissioner and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In August 2013, Meadows filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, and alleged an onset date of August 10, 2008. Administrative Record (“AR”) 13. The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 13, 115-16, 143-44. Meadows requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On May 14, 2015, the ALJ conducted a hearing at which Meadows and a vocational expert testified. AR 28-52.

         On June 18, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. AR 10-23. The ALJ noted that Meadows was previously found not disabled in a decision by an ALJ dated May 4, 2012. AR 13, 75-90. The onset date was amended to start the day after the date of the prior ALJ's decision. AR 32-33. The ALJ found new and material evidence that showed changed circumstances in the period after May 4, 2012. AR 13.

         On September 20, 2016, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. AR 1-5. This action followed.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court has authority to review the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. The decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, or if it is based upon the application of improper legal standards. Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).

         “Substantial evidence” means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance - it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion.” Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523. In determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner's decision, the court examines the administrative record as a whole, considering adverse as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. When the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the court must defer to the Commissioner's decision. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Disability

         A person qualifies as disabled, and thereby eligible for such benefits, “only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 21-22, 124 S.Ct. 376, 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

         B. The ...


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.