United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REVERSING DECISION OF
THE COMMISSIONER AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS
MARIA
A. AUDERO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On
August 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking review of
the Commissioner's final decision denying his
applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income pursuant to Titles II and XVI of
the Social Security Act. This matter is fully briefed and
ready for decision. For the reasons discussed below, the
Commissioner's final decision is reversed, and this
matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings.
ADMINISTRATIVE
BACKGROUND
On
February 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed applications Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging
disability beginning on October 31, 2010. (Administrative
Record [AR] 101, 110, 143.) Plaintiff alleged disability
because of lower back problems. (AR101, 110.) After Plaintiff
s applications were denied initially (AR 101-18) and upon
reconsideration (AR 121-40), and after an administrative
hearing (AR 48-75), an Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") denied the applications in a decision
issued on December 28, 2015 (AR 146-155).
On
February 28, 2017, the Appeals Council granted review,
vacated the ALJ's decision, and remanded the matter for
further proceedings. (AR 163-65.) The Appeals Council
directed the ALJ to obtain additional evidence concerning
Plaintiffs physical and mental impairments, give further
consideration to Plaintiffs maximum residual functional
capacity, and obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational
expert. (AR 163-64.) On July 14, 2017, the ALJ held an
administrative hearing. (AR 76-100.) Plaintiff appeared at
the hearing with counsel, and the ALJ heard testimony from
Plaintiff and a vocational expert. (AR 77.)
In a
decision issued on September 19, 2017, the ALJ denied
Plaintiffs applications after making the following findings
pursuant to the Commissioner's five-step evaluation. (AR
15-29.) Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since his alleged onset date of October 31, 2010.
(AR 18.) He had severe impairments consisting of
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, status post
fusion; spondylosis; post laminectomy syndrome; depressive
disorder, not otherwise specified; and anxiety disorder, not
otherwise specified. (AR 19.) He did not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled
the requirements of one of the impairments from the
Commissioner's Listing of Impairments. (Id.) He
had a residual functional capacity to perform "a less
than light level of exertional work" with a limitation
to simple, repetitive tasks in a non-public setting with only
occasional and superficial interaction with coworkers, and no
work in a team setting. (AR 21.) Based on this residual
functional capacity, Plaintiff could not perform his past
relevant work as a material handler or an athletic trainer.
(AR 27.) However, Plaintiff could perform other work in the
national economy, in the occupations of marker, routing
clerk, and photocopy machine operator. (AR 28.) Accordingly,
the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined
by the Social Security Act. (Id.)
On June
15, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for
review. (AR 1-6.) Thus, the ALJ's decision became the
final decision of the Commissioner.
DISPUTED
ISSUES
The
parties raise three disputed issues:
1.
"Whether the ALJ properly considered the treating
physician's opinion."
2.
"Whether the ALJ conducted a proper residual functional
capacity assessment."
3.
"Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff s
testimony." (ECF No. 23, Parties' Joint Stipulation
["Joint Stip."] at 3.)
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
Under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court reviews the
Commissioner's final decision to determine whether the
Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied.
See Treichler v. Commissioner of Social 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. The Court must review
the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that
supports and the evidence that detracts from the
Commissioner's conclusion. Lingenfelter, 504
...