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.

Michaud v. Saul

United States District Court, S.D. California

November 1, 2019

LISA LURINE MICHAUD, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF Nos. 15, 16]

          Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin United States Magistrate Judge.

         This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Janis L. Sammartino pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

         Plaintiff Lisa Lurine Michaud (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final administrative decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”). (ECF No. 15-1 at 2).[1] The final administrative decision of the Commissioner denied Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Title II”) and for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“Title XVI”). (AR 37).[2]

         For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED IN PART, Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED, and that the case be REMANDED for further proceedings.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff was born on July 17, 1964. (AR 384). At the time the instant application was filed on May 27, 2014, Plaintiff was 49 years-old which categorized her as a younger person. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563, 416.963.

         A. Procedural History

         On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for a period of Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II and for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI. (AR 37). The application alleged a disability beginning November 28, 2011. (Id.). After her application was denied initially and upon reconsideration, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Id.). An administrative hearing was held on February 9, 2017. (Id.). Plaintiff appeared and was represented by attorney Pauline McMahon. (AR 209). Testimony was taken from Plaintiff and impartial vocational expert Nelly Katsell. (AR 207-67). On June 28, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled from November 28, 2011 through the date of the decision and therefore denied Plaintiff's claim for benefits. (AR 45).[3]

         On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. (AR 414). On October 16, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review and declared the ALJ's decision to be the Commissioner's final decision in Plaintiff's case. (AR 1-4). This timely civil action followed.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Sections 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act allow unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of a final agency decision of the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The scope of judicial review is limited in that a denial of benefits will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence and contains no legal error. Id.; see also Batson v. Comm'r of the SSA, 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004).

         Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance. . . .” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[I]t is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). The court must consider the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner's conclusions. Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). If the evidence supports more than one rational interpretation, the court must uphold the ALJ's decision. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193. When the evidence is inconclusive, “‘questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the Secretary.'” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting Waters v. Gardner, 452 F.2d 855, 858 n.7 (9th Cir. 1971)).

         Even if a reviewing court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion, the court must set aside the decision if the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standards in weighing the evidence and reaching his or her decision. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193. Section 405(g) permits a court to enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The reviewing court may also remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. Id.

         B. Summary of the ...


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.