Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Fentroy v. Saul
United States District Court, E.D. California
September 13, 2019
TOMMIE W. FENTROY, Plaintiff,
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
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”). 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.
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. 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
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
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