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.

Bradley H. v. Saul

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 20, 2019

BRADLEY H., [1] Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, [2] Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

          Alexander F. MacKinnon United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. In accordance with the Court's case management order, the parties have filed briefs addressing the merits of the disputed issues. This matter is now ready for decision.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits was denied initially and on reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing at which Plaintiff, his attorney, and a Vocational Expert (“VE”) were present. (AR 55-72.) The ALJ issued a decision on April 4, 2017, finding that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease and a history of advanced left knee osteoarthritis status post left knee total knee arthroplasty. (AR 23.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work, except he was limited to standing and walking 2 hours out of an 8-hour workday; he required the use of a cane as needed for prolonged ambulation; he was limited to occasional postural activities, but barred from climbing ladders, scaffolds or ropes; and he was barred from all exposure to unprotected heights or dangerous machinery. (AR 24.) Relying on the testimony of the VE, the ALJ concluded that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could have performed, such as cashier, small products assembler, and electrical accessories assembler. (AR 29-30.) Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled at any time from January 31, 2013 (the alleged onset date) through December 31, 2015 (the date last insured). (AR 29.) The Appeals Council denied review, thereby rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.

         DISPUTED ISSUES

         1. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints.

         2. Whether the ALJ adequately considered Plaintiff's peripheral neuropathy.

         3. Whether the ALJ properly considered the opinion of Dr. Rounaghi.

         4. Whether the ALJ properly credited the VE's testimony.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. See Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2014). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” but less than a preponderance. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. Where evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's decision must be upheld. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007); Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004) (“When evidence reasonably supports either confirming or reversing the ALJ's decision, [the court] may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ.”).

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly discounted his subjective complaints regarding pain and other symptoms.

         A. ...


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.