United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HONORABLE JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE.
I.
SUMMARY
On
November 27, 2018, plaintiff Kathy G. filed a Complaint
seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's
denial of plaintiff's application for benefits. The
parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge.
This
matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions
for summary judgment, respectively (“Plaintiff's
Motion”) and (“Defendant's Motion”)
(collectively “Motions”). The Court has taken the
Motions under submission without oral argument. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7-15; November 28, 2018 Case Management
Order ¶ 5.
Based
on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision
of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The findings of the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) are supported by
substantial evidence and are free from material error.
II.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
On
November 20, 2014, plaintiff filed an application for
Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging disability beginning
on May 9, 2014 due to a herniated disc in her neck at ¶
5-7; a pinched nerve in her neck; narrowing of the spine;
constant numbness and pain in her left arm; occasional
numbness and pain in her chest, right arm and left shoulder
blade; headaches; vertigo; and anxiety. (Administrative
Record (“AR”) 230, 247). The ALJ examined the
medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was
represented by counsel) and a vocational expert. (AR 106-29).
On
August 23, 2017, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not
disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 81-100).
Specifically, the ALJ found: (1) plaintiff suffered from the
following severe impairments: right shoulder tear and
tendinosis; left shoulder tear and tendinosis; cervical spine
degenerative disc disease; lumbar spine degenerative disc
disease; and left elbow epicondylitis (AR 83); (2)
plaintiff's impairments, considered individually or in
combination, did not meet or medically equal a listed
impairment (AR 87); (3) plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity to perform light work (20 C.F.R. §
404.1567(b)) with additional limitations[3] (AR 87-88); (4)
plaintiff could not perform any past relevant work (AR
98-99); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers
in the national economy that plaintiff could perform,
specifically Receptionist and Appointment Clerk (AR 99-100);
and (6) plaintiff's statements regarding the intensity,
persistence, and limiting effects of her subjective symptoms
were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and
other evidence in the record (AR 90-91).
On
October 17, 2018, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's
application for review.[4] (AR 1-7).
III.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Administrative Evaluation of Disability Claims
To
qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that
she is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months.” Molina v.
Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)) (internal quotation marks
omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a). To be considered
disabled, a claimant must have an impairment of such severity
that she is incapable of performing work the claimant
previously performed (“past relevant work”) as
well as any other “work which exists in the national
economy.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094,
1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)).
To
assess whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ is required to
use the five-step sequential evaluation process set forth in
Social Security regulations. See Stout v. Commissioner,
Social Security Administration, 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th
Cir. 2006) (describing five-step sequential evaluation
process) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). The claimant has
the burden of proof at steps one through four -
i.e., determination of whether the claimant was
engaging in substantial gainful activity (step 1), has a
sufficiently severe impairment (step 2), has an impairment or
combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one
of the conditions listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (“Listings”) (step 3), and retains the
residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work
(step 4). Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th
Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The Commissioner has the
burden of proof at step five - i.e., establishing
that the claimant could perform other work in the national
economy. Id.
B.
Federal Court Review of Social Security ...