United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
social security action was submitted to the undersigned
without oral argument for ruling on plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment and defendant's cross-motion for
summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the
undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion be denied,
the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) be affirmed, and this matter be
April 18, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the
Social Security Act (“the Act”), alleging
disability beginning on October 1, 2011. (Transcript
(“Tr.”) at 140-43.) Plaintiff's application
was denied initially, (id. at 86-89), and upon
reconsideration. (Id. at 95-101.) Plaintiff
requested an administrative hearing and a hearing was held
before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on
October 16, 2014. (Id. at 34-49.) Plaintiff was
represented by an attorney and testified at the
administrative hearing. (Id. at 34-37.)
decision issued on January 30, 2015, the ALJ found that
plaintiff was not disabled. (Id. at 29.) The ALJ
entered the following findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2016.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since October 1, 2011, the alleged onset date (20
C.F.R. § 404.1571 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
bilateral hallux valgus, degenerative joint disease of the
joints of the feet, obesity, an affective disorder, and a
substance abuse disorder (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart
P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find
that the claimant has the residual functional physical
capacity to perform light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1567(b). She retains the aptitudes and abilities
to engage in simple, repetitive tasks equating to unskilled
work with limited public interaction.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 C.F.R. § 404.1565).
7. The claimant was born on January 23, 1961, was fifty years
old, which is defined as an individual closely approaching
advanced age, on the alleged disability onset date (20 C.F.R.
8. The claimant has a limited education and is able to
communicate in English (20 C.F.R. § 404.1564).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled” whether or
not the claimant has transferable job skills (see
SSR 82-41 and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
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 (20 C.F.R. § 404.1569 and
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, at any time from October 1, 2011,
through the date of this decision (20 C.F.R. §
(Id. at 19-29.)
28, 2016, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request
for review of the ALJ's January 30, 2015 decision.
(Id. at 1-3.) Plaintiff sought judicial review
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) by filing ...