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.

Eanes v. Berryhill

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 24, 2018

TOREY EANES, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Torey Eanes (“Plaintiff”) seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner” or “Agency”) denying his application for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this action is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On August 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB, alleging a disability onset date of October 24, 2009. Administrative Record (“AR”) at 155-59. Plaintiff's application was denied initially on October 8, 2013 and upon reconsideration on February 28, 2014. Id. at 68-92.

         Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Id. at 106. On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before the assigned ALJ. Id. at 34-67. A vocational expert also testified at the hearing. Id. at 61-64. On April 20, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff's application for DIB. Id. at 15-27.

         Plaintiff filed a request to the Agency's Appeals Council to review the ALJ's decision. Id. at 151-54. On June 14, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. Id. at 1-4.

         On August 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant action. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1, Compl. This matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Stipulation (“JS”), filed on May 3, 2018. Dkt. 20, JS.

         II. PLAINTIFF'S BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff was born on July 25, 1977, and his alleged disability onset date is October 24, 2009. AR at 155. He was 32 years old on the alleged disability onset date and 38 years old at the time of the hearing before the ALJ. Id. at 68. Plaintiff completed one year of college. Id. at 197. Plaintiff alleges disability based on ankle, leg, thigh, and shoulder injuries. Id. at 68, 81-82.

         III. STANDARD FOR EVALUATING DISABILITY

         To qualify for benefits, a claimant must demonstrate a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that prevents him from engaging in substantial gainful activity, and that is expected to result in death or to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 721 (9th Cir. 1998). The impairment must render the claimant incapable of performing the work he previously performed and incapable of performing any other substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999).

         To decide if a claimant is disabled, and therefore entitled to benefits, an ALJ conducts a five-step inquiry. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The steps are:

1. Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two.
2. Is the claimant's impairment severe? If not, the claimant is found not disabled. If so, proceed to step three.
3. Does the claimant's impairment meet or equal one of the specific impairments described in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1? If so, the claimant is found disabled. If not, proceed to step four.[1]
4. Is the claimant capable of performing work he has done in the past? If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step five.
5. Is the claimant able to do any other work? If not, the claimant is found disabled. If so, the claimant is found not disabled.

See Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99; see also Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b)-(g)(1), 416.920(b)-(g)(1).

         The claimant has the burden of proof at steps one through four, and the Commissioner has the burden of proof at step five. Bustamante, 262 F.3d at 953-54. Additionally, the ALJ has an affirmative duty to assist the claimant in developing the record at every step of the inquiry. Id. at 954. If, at step four, the claimant meets his burden of establishing an inability to perform past work, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform some other work that exists in “significant numbers” in the national economy, taking into account the claimant's residual functional capacity ...


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.