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 grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
and deny the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary
born January 9, 1988, applied for SSI in September 2010,
alleging disability beginning November 8, 2008.
Administrative Transcript (“AT”) 74, 214.
Plaintiff alleged she was unable to work due to bipolar
disorder, mood disorder, attention deficit disorder, and
depression. AT 757. An administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) issued an unfavorable decision on July
20, 2012. AT 32-42. The Appeals Council declined review. AT
43-45. Plaintiff then filed an appeal to this court in case
No. 2:13-cv-00570 CKD. After plaintiff filed a motion for
summary judgment, the parties stipulated to a remand for
further proceedings. AT 60-61.
remand, a second ALJ held a hearing on August 18, 2014. AT
814-850. Plaintiff was represented by counsel, and the ALJ
also heard testimony from Dr. Arnold Ostrow, an internist and
pulmonologist, and Alina Sala, a vocational expert. AT
814-850. After the hearing, the ALJ obtained a consultative
evaluation of plaintiff's mental health from clinical
psychologist Dr. Sara Bowerman. AT 720-728. In a decision
dated March 23, 2015, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was
not disabled. AT 13-29. The ALJ made the following
findings (citations to 20 C.F.R. omitted):
1. The claimant last met the insured status requirements of
the Social Security Act on December 31, 2008.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since November 7, 2008, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: bipolar
disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.
4. 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.
5. 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: she can perform simple, routine, repetitive
tasks with occasional decisionmaking, occasional workplace
changes, and no fast paced production. She can occasionally
interact with the public, coworkers and supervisors.
6. The claimant has no past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on January 9, 1988 and was 20 years
old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on
the alleged disability onset date.
8. The claimant has at least a high-school education and is
able to communicate in English.
9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case
because the claimant does not have past relevant work.
10. 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.
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from November 7, 2008, through
the date of this decision.