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.

McCloud v. Berryhill

United States District Court, C.D. California

February 20, 2018

ALITHA McCLOUD, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          SHERI PYM United States Magistrate Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On November 21, 2016, plaintiff Alitha McCloud filed a complaint against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”), seeking a review of a denial of supplemental security income (“SSI”). Both plaintiff and defendant have consented to proceed for all purposes before the assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The court deems the matter suitable for adjudication without oral argument.

         Plaintiff argues the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred at step five because he failed to resolve a conflict between the testimony of the vocational expert and the Occupational Outlook Handbook, and the step five finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Memorandum in Support of Complaint (“P. Mem.”) at 4; Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Answer (“D. Mem.”) at 3-8.

         Having carefully studied the parties' memoranda, the Administrative Record (“AR”), and the decision of the ALJ, the court concludes that, as detailed herein, plaintiff waived her challenge to the ALJ's step five finding, and even if not waived, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding at step five. Consequently, this court affirms the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits.

         II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, who was forty years old on her alleged onset of disability date, has an eleventh grade education. AR at 39, 54, 185. Plaintiff has no past relevant work. Id. at 29, 38.

         On May 8, 2013, plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI due to high blood pressure, muscle spasms, and arthritis. Id. at 54; see id. at 134-39. The Commissioner denied plaintiff's application initially and upon reconsideration, after which she filed a request for a hearing. Id. at 80-93.

         On May 1, 2015, plaintiff, represented by counsel, appeared and testified at a hearing before the ALJ. Id. at 34-53. A vocational expert, Gregory Jones, also testified. Id. at 48-52. On June 9, 2015, the ALJ denied plaintiff's claim for benefits. Id. at 23-30.

         Applying the well-known five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found, at step one, that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 8, 2013, the application date. Id. at 25.

         At step two, the ALJ found plaintiff suffered from the severe impairments of degenerative disk disease of the lumbar spine and degenerative joint disease involving the knees. Id.

         At step three, the ALJ found plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id.

         The ALJ then assessed plaintiff's residual functional capacity (“RFC”), [1] and determined she had the RFC to perform light work with the limitations that plaintiff could: lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; stand and walk for four hours out of an eight-hour workday; occasionally push and pull with the right lower extremity; occasionally climb ladders, ropes, scaffolds, ramps, and stairs; and occasionally balance, kneel, crouch, ...


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.