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.

Navarro v. Berryhill

United States District Court, C.D. California, Eastern Division

July 24, 2017

ANGELA NAVARRO, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          PAUL L. ABRAMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. PROCEEDINGS

         Plaintiff filed this action on November 25, 2016, seeking review of the Commissioner's[1]denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) payments. The parties filed Consents to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on December 19, 2016, and December 28, 2016. Pursuant to the Court's Order, the parties filed a Joint Submission (alternatively “JS”) on July 20, 2017, that addresses their positions concerning the disputed issue in the case. The Court has taken the Joint Submission under submission without oral argument.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff was born on June 10, 1957. [Administrative Record (“AR”) at 179, 188.] She has past relevant work experience as an order clerk, sales clerk, and data entry clerk. [AR at 42.]

         On August 14, 2013, plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and DIB, and an application for SSI payments, alleging that she has been unable to work since December 15, 2012. [AR at 32, 179-87, 188-94.] After her applications were denied, plaintiff timely filed a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). [AR at 32, 124-25.] A hearing was held on April 14, 2015, at which time plaintiff appeared represented by an attorney, and testified on her own behalf. [AR at 49-91.] Following the hearing, interrogatories were propounded to a vocational expert (“VE”), who responded to the questions under oath. [AR at 305-11.] Although she was given notice that she could do so [AR at 312-13], plaintiff did not submit cross interrogatories, additional evidence, or request a supplemental hearing; the sworn answers were admitted into evidence. [AR at 32.] On October 14, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision concluding that plaintiff was not under a disability from December 15, 2012, the alleged onset date, through October 14, 2015, the date of the decision. [AR at 32-43.] Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council. [AR at 25-28.] When the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review on September 27, 2016 [AR at 1-6], the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. See Sam v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citations omitted). This action followed.

         III. 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. Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

         “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998) (same). When 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. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see Ryan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ's decision should be upheld.” Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (“If the evidence can support either affirming or reversing the ALJ's conclusion, [the reviewing court] may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ.”) (citation omitted).

         IV. THE EVALUATION OF DISABILITY

         Persons are “disabled” for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits if they are unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity owing to a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or which has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).

         A. THE FIVE-STEP EVALUATION PROCESS

         The Commissioner (or ALJ) follows a five-step sequential evaluation process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended April 9, 1996. In the first step, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. Id. If the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, the second step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting her ability to do basic work activities; if not, a finding of nondisability is made and the claim is denied. Id. If the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments, the third step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment in the Listing of Impairments (“Listing”) set forth at 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1; if so, disability is conclusively presumed and benefits are awarded. Id. If the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments does not meet or equal an impairment in the Listing, the fourth step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has sufficient “residual functional capacity” to perform her past work; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. Id. The claimant has the burden of proving that she is unable to perform past relevant work. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. If the claimant meets this burden, a prima facie case of disability is established. Id. The Commissioner then bears the burden of establishing that the claimant is not disabled, because she can perform other substantial gainful work available in the national economy. Id. The determination of this issue comprises the fifth and final step in the sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Lester, 81 F.3d at 828 n.5; Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257.

         B. THE ALJ'S APPLICATION OF THE FIVE-STEP PROCESS

         At step one, the ALJ found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 15, 2012, the alleged onset date.[2] [AR at 34.] At step two, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff has the”medically determinable conditions of ill-being” of degenerative disc disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetes mellitus, and major depressive order, which in combination cause more than a minimal limitation on her ability to engage in work or work-like activity and, therefore, “constitute a severe impairment.” [AR at 35.] At step three, the ALJ determined that plaintiff does not have an impairment or a combination of impairments that meets or medically equals any of the impairments in the Listing. [AR at 36.] The ALJ further found that plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”)[3] to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b), [4] as follows:

[Can] stand and walk up to six (6) hours, cumulatively, and sit up to six (6) hours, cumulatively, in an eight hour work day. [Plaintiff] may stand up to 30 minutes at one time and walk up to 30 minutes at one time. [Plaintiff] can lift and carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. [Plaintiff] may alternate positions every thirty minutes. [Plaintiff] can occasionally climb, balance, bend, stoop, and crawl, but never climb rope, scaffold, or ladders. [Plaintiff] may more than frequently, but less than constantly, perform complex technical work and can perform a full range of simple, repetitive work. [Plaintiff] may perform work at stress level 7 on a scale of (1) one to (10) ten, one, by example, the work ...

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.