United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying an
application for Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act (“Act”). For the reasons discussed below, the
court will deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
and grant the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary
born October 15, 1992, applied on April 26, 2011 for SSI,
alleging disability beginning May 1, 2006. Administrative
Transcript (“AT”) 18, 249. Plaintiff alleged he
was unable to work due to mental retardation. AT 109. The
Social Security Administration denied this claim both
initially and on reconsideration. AT 18. In a decision dated
April 10, 2013, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not
disabled. AT 120-124. On March 15, 2014, the Appeals
Council granted plaintiff's request for review and
vacated the ALJ's April 2013 decision. AT 145-148. The
Appeals Council also remanded plaintiff's SSI claim to
the ALJ for a new hearing, further development of the record,
and a new decision. AT 148.
remand, in a decision dated September 8, 2014, the ALJ again
found plaintiff not disabled. AT 14-41. The ALJ made the
following findings (citations to 20 C.F.R. omitted):
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since April 26, 2011, the application date.
2. The claimant has the following severe impairment:
borderline intellectual functioning. The claimant has the
following medically determinable impairments that are not
severe: depression, anxiety and obesity.
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following nonexertional
limitations: the claimant is able to understand, remember and
carry out no more than one to two step job instructions but
can maintain concentration, persistence and pace for simple
job tasks and can interact appropriately with supervisors,
coworkers and the public.
5. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
6. The claimant was born on October 15, 1992 and was 18 years
old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on
the date the application was filed.
7. The claimant has at least a high-school education and is
able to communicate in English.
8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case
because the claimant does not have past relevant work.
9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform.
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, since April 26, 2011, the date
the application was filed.
argues that the ALJ committed the following errors in finding
plaintiff not disabled: (1) the ALJ erred in finding that
plaintiff did not have a presumptively disabling impairment,
as she improperly evaluated the medical evidence; and (2) the
ALJ failed to base her step five finding on the correct