United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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
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. 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
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.