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.

Fentroy v. Saul

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 13, 2019

TOMMIE W. FENTROY, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, 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”). The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings in the case, including the entry of final judgment. 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, born in 1964, applied on March 27, 2014 for SSI and disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning November 30, 2013. Administrative Transcript (“AT”) 148, 155. Plaintiff alleged he was unable to work due to scoliosis. AT 178. In a decision dated //// February 9, 2017, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled.[1] AT 148-157. 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, 2018.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 30, 2013, the application date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease and personality disorder.
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 light work specifically as follows: the claimant can perform occasional postural activities; the claimant cannot climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; the claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, fumes, gases, dust and hazards; the claimant can frequently reach with the bilateral upper extremities; and the claimant is limited to nonpublic, simple, repetitive tasks.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on XX/XX/1964, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49 on the alleged disability onset date. The claimant subsequently changed age category to closely approaching advanced age.
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.
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from November 30, 2013, through ...

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.