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.

Wise v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 31, 2017

DOUG WISE, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This social security action was submitted to the court without oral argument for ruling on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.[1]Plaintiff's motion argues that the Administrative Law Judge's treatment of the medical opinion evidence constituted error. For the reasons explained below, plaintiff's motion is granted, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In a decision dated July 1, 1994, plaintiff was found to be disabled as of July 1, 1994, and thus entitled to Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). (Transcript (“Tr.”) at 17.) However, in September of 2013, it was determined that plaintiff was no longer disabled as of September 1, 2013. (Id. at 17, 68, 73-76.) This determination was upheld upon reconsideration. (Id. at 109-11.)

         Thereafter, plaintiff requested a hearing, which was initially held on November 18, 2014, with a subsequent hearing on February 24, 2015. (Id. at 32-45, 46-67.) Plaintiff testified at both administrative hearings, but was represented by counsel at only the February 24, 2015 hearing. (Id. at 32-35, 46-47.) In a decision issued on July 15, 2015, the ALJ found that plaintiff's disability ended as of September 1, 2013. (Id. at 27.) The ALJ entered the following findings:

1. The most recent favorable medical decision finding that the claimant continued to be disabled is the determination dated October 15, 2007. This is known as the “comparison point decision” or CPD.
2. At the time of the CPD, the claimant had the following medically determinable impairments: Bipolar disorder, ADHD, and emotional disturbance. His bipolar disorder was found to meet section(s) 12.04 (Affective (mood) Disorders) of 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d)).
3. The medical evidence establishes that the claimant did not develop any additional impairments after the CPD through September 1, 2013. Thus, the claimant's current impairments are the same as the CPD impairments.
4. Since January 1, 2013, the claimant has not had an impairment or combination of impairments which meets or medically equals the severity of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1525 and 404.1526).
5. Medical improvement occurred as of September 1, 2013 (20 CFR 416.994(b)(1)(i)).
6. The medical improvement is related to the ability to work because, as of September 1, 2013, the claimant no longer had an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the same listing(s) that was met at the time of the CPD (20 CFR 416.994(b)(2)(iv)(A)).
7. Beginning on September 1, 2013, the claimant's impairments has (sic) continued to be severe (20 CFR 416.994(b)(5)(v)).
6 (sic). After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that, beginning on September 1, 2013, the claimant has had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: he can perform limited 1 to 2-step tasks with only occasional contact with the public, co-workers, and supervisors.
7 (sic). The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965).
8. On September 1, 2013, the claimant was a younger individual age 18-49 ...

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.