United States District Court, N.D. California
JOHN P. CERRILLO, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Defendant.
ORDER REMANDING FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
John Cerrillo appeals the decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying him
disability benefits under the Social Security Act
(“SSA”). An Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) reviewed Cerrillo's application and
determined he was not disabled and thus not eligible for
benefits. Upon consideration of the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment and for the reasons
discussed below, the ALJ's decision is vacated and the
matter is remanded for payment of benefits consistent with
this opinion.
II.
BACKGROUND
Cerrillo
is a fifty-one-year-old man with a history of physical and
mental impairments. In May 2014, he filed applications for
disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security
Income based on his alleged degenerative disc disease of the
lumber and cervical spines, right ankle trauma, depressive
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder
(“PTSD”), and stomach tumor. He has a high-school
education and previously worked as a clerk and recreational
facility manager. The alleged onset date of his disability
was May 1, 2014. The Commissioner denied his application
initially and on reconsideration.
Cerrillo
appeared in front of an ALJ in October 2016. At that hearing,
Cerrillo testified about his own disabilities. The ALJ also
considered a statement from Cerrillo's mother, as well as
the opinions of several doctors-some of whom had treated or
examined Cerrillo. Finally, a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified at the hearing and responded to
several hypotheticals posed by the ALJ. In February 2017, the
ALJ issued a decision finding Cerrillo not disabled. The
Appeals Council declined to review the decision. This action
followed.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court has jurisdiction to
review the Commissioner's final decision denying benefits
under the SSA. An ALJ's decision to that effect must be
affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence and is
free of legal error. Beltran v. Astrue, 700 F.3d
386, 388 (9th Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence is defined as
“more than a mere scintilla but less than a
preponderance-it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support the
conclusion.” Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521,
523 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In determining whether a
decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court must
examine the administrative record as a whole, considering all
of the facts. Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255,
1257 (9th Cir. 1992). If the evidence supports more than one
rational interpretation, the court must defer to the
ALJ's decision. Id. at 1258. “If
additional proceedings can remedy defects in the original
administrative proceeding, a social security case should be
remanded.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995,
1019 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted).
IV.
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard for Evaluating Disability
A
person is “disabled” for the purposes of
receiving Social Security benefits if he is unable to engage
in any substantial gainful activity due to a medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which is expected
to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). In evaluating whether a
claimant is disabled, the Commissioner must follow a
five-step sequential inquiry. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520, 416.920; Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821,
828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995). The burden rests on the claimant to
prove: (1) he is not working; (2) he has a severe medically
determinable impairment that is expected to last more than
twelve months; and either (3) that impairment is severe
enough to meet or equal an impairment listed as a priori
disabling without further vocational-medical evidence; or (4)
the impairment causes such functional limitations that he
cannot do his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(I)-(iv).
If the
claimant successfully proves he cannot do his past work, then
the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show at step five
that the claimant can perform other work that exists in
significant numbers in the economy; otherwise, the claimant
will be found disabled. Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover,
if the claimant's impairment does not meet or equal a
listed impairment under step three, the ALJ must determine
the claimant's residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) and apply it during steps four and five
to make a final disability determination. Lingenfelter v.
Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), which describes the five-step
process). An individual's RFC is the most they can still
do despite their limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §
416.945(a)(1).
B.
ALJ Application of Standard
Here,
the ALJ followed this five-step inquiry. At step one, he
found that Cerrillo had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date of May 1, 2014. At step
two, he found that Cerrillo had several severe impairments:
depression, PTSD, right ankle trauma, opioid dependence,
degenerative disc disease in the cervical and lumber spines,
and a stomach tumor. The ALJ mentioned that all other
conditions in the medical record would be considered
non-severe “[d]ue to a lack of objective medical signs
and laboratory findings of a longitudinal nature.”
Administrative Record ...