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.

Easley v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 23, 2018

ROY EUGENE EASLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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 deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment.[1]

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, born xx/xx/1967, applied on January 7, 2014 for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DBI”) and SSI, alleging disability beginning October 15, 2013; he later amended the onset date to January 22, 2014. Administrative Transcript (“AT”) 38, 107, 189. Plaintiff alleged he was unable to work due to nightmares, heart disease, depression, anxiety, memory loss, blurred/double vision, migraine headaches, and sensitivity to light. AT 107. In a decision dated January 29, 2016, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled.[2] AT 9-24. The ALJ made the following findings (citations to 20 C.F.R. omitted):

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2014.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 22, 2014, the amended alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), borderline intellectual functioning, and a history of polysubstance abuse.
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 medium work except with the following limitations: he can perform simple tasks in a setting with no work at a fixed production rate; few workplace changes; no direct interaction with the general public; and no more than occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on May 5, 1967 and was 46 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49 on the amended disability onset date.
8. The claimant has a limited education and is able to communicate in English.
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.
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.

AT 11-23.

         ISSUES ...


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.