United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTNG ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
PLAINTIFF ANTONIO RANGEL. AND AGAINST DEFENDANT, NANCY A.
BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY
GARY
S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff,
Antonio Rangel (“Plaintiff”), seeks judicial
review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner” or
“Defendant”) denying his application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) pursuant to
Title II of the Social Security Act. The matter is currently
before the Court on the parties' briefs (Docs. 9, 14, and
15), which were submitted without oral argument to the
Honorable Gary S. Austin, United States Magistrate
Judge.[2] Upon a review of the administrative
record, the Court finds the ALJ did not apply the correct
legal standards and the decision is not supported by
substantial evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Appeal is
GRANTED IN PART and the case is remanded to the agency for
further proceedings.
II.
FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
A.
Background
On
October 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB
claiming disability beginning October 7, 2013, due to
posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), an
anxiety disorder, panic attacks, insomnia, racing thoughts,
hyperventilation, flashbacks, and nightmares. AR 29; 32; 111;
145-147; 149-153; 243-246; 264. The parties agree that
Plaintiff properly exhausted his administrative remedies and
that the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's appeal.
(Doc.9, pgs. 6-7 and Doc. 14, pg. 2). Therefore, this appeal
is a review of Administrative Law Judge Judson Scott's
(“ALJ”) decision issued on August 5, 2015, which
is considered the Commissioner's final order.
See, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). AR
29-38.
Plaintiff
is now challenging ALJ Scott's decision arguing that the
ALJ erred by: (1) failing to appropriately consider
Plaintiff's Veteran's Affair's (“VA”)
disability rating; (2) improperly rejecting Plaintiff's
treating psychiatrist's (Dr. Domb's) opinion; and (3)
improperly assessing Plaintiff's credibility . (Doc. 9,
pgs. 6-21; Doc. 15, pgs. 2-5). Plaintiff requests that the
Court remand the case for an award of benefits, or
alternatively, that the case be remanded for further
proceedings. In opposition, Defendant argues that: (1) the
ALJ properly considered the VA's disability ratings; (2)
the ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinion evidence was
proper; and (3) the ALJ properly rejected Plaintiff's
testimony. Therefore, the ALJ's decision is supported by
substantial evidence and it should be affirmed. (Doc. 20,
pgs. 4-15).
B.
Summary of the Medical Record
The
Court has reviewed the entire medical record. AR 331-1539.
Because the parties are familiar with the Plaintiff's
medical history, the Court will not exhaustively summarize
these facts in this order. Relevant portions of the medical
record related to the issues raised in this appeal will be
referenced in this decision where appropriate.
III.
THE DISABILITY DETERMINATION PROCESS
To
qualify for benefits under the Social Security Act, a
plaintiff must establish that he or she is unable to engage
in substantial gainful activity due to a medically
determinable physical or mental impairment that has lasted or
can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less
than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). An
individual shall be considered to have a disability only if:
. . . his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of
such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous
work, but cannot, considering his age, education, and work
experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful
work which exists in the national economy, regardless of
whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he
lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or
whether he would be hired if he applied for work.
42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
To
achieve uniformity in the decision-making process, the
Commissioner has established a sequential five-step process
for evaluating a claimant's alleged disability. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1502(a)-(f).[3] The ALJ proceeds through the steps and
stops upon reaching a dispositive finding that the claimant
is or is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a)(4). The
ALJ must consider objective medical evidence and opinion
testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.
Specifically,
the ALJ is required to determine: (1) whether a claimant
engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period of
alleged disability, (2) whether the claimant had
medically-determinable “severe” impairments,
[4] (3)
whether these impairments meet or are medically equivalent to
one of the listed impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. §
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, (4) whether the claimant retained
the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to
perform his or her past relevant work, [5] and (5) whether
the claimant had the ability to perform other jobs existing
in significant numbers at the regional and national level. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f).
IV.
SUMMARY OF THE ALJ'S DECISION
Using
the Social Security Administration's five-step sequential
evaluation process, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not
meet the disability standard. AR 38. In particular, the ALJ
found that Plaintiff last met the insured status requirements
through December 31, 2018, and that he had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity from his alleged onset date of
October 7, 2013. AR 31. Further, the ALJ identified
“chronic anxiety disorder with moderate control, asthma
with poor control, diabetes with poor control, ” and
alcohol dependence in remission as severe impairments. AR
31-32. The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff does not have
an impairment, or combination of impairments that meet, or
medically equal the severity of one of the listed impairments
in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. AR 32-34.
Based
on a review of the entire record, the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff had the RFC to perform a wide range of medium work
as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c), except that he
was limited to lifting/carrying fifty pounds occasionally and
twenty-five pounds frequently, including the use of foot
controls; he could perform frequent postural movements; he
could not work around dusts, gases, fumes above street levels
of concentration, or extreme cold; he must avoid work at
unprotected heights or around hazardous moving machinery; he
was able to do simple through complex work; he was limited to
occasional interaction with the public and frequent
interaction with supervisors and coworkers; and he was
limited to low-stress occupations, defined as few changes in
the work or its setting. AR 34-36.
IV.
STAND ...