United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
HONORABLE JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
SUMMARY
On
March 1, 2019, plaintiff Walter R. filed a Complaint seeking
review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of
plaintiff's applications 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; March 5, 2019 Case Management
Order ¶ 5.
Based
on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision
of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further
proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order
of Remand.
II.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
On
November 16, 2015, plaintiff filed applications for
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security
Income, alleging disability beginning on June 1, 2014, due to
stenosis of the spine, sleep deprivation, neuropathy, ADHD,
and bipolar disorder.[3] (AR 197, 204, 210, 212, 250). Plaintiff
later alleged a new condition, “sc[h]izoaffective
bipolar nonconsildate [sic] mixed severe systematiz [sic],
” beginning on June 30, 2016. (AR 311). The ALJ
examined the medical record and heard testimony from
plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) and a vocational
expert. (AR 38-63).
On May
4, 2018, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled
through the date of the decision. (AR 20-32). Specifically,
the ALJ found: (1) plaintiff suffered from the severe
impairments of stenosis of the lumbar spine; neuropathy;
major depressive disorder; adjustment disorder; bipolar I
disorder; schizoaffective disorder; and anxiety (AR 22); (2)
plaintiff's impairments, considered individually or in
combination, did not meet or medically equal a listed
impairment (AR 23); (3) plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity to perform light work (20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b)) with additional
limitations[4] (AR 25); (4) plaintiff could not perform
any past relevant work (AR 30); (5) plaintiff could perform
jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy, such as mail sorter, bench assembler, and swatch
clerk (AR 30-31); and (6) plaintiff's statements
regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of
subjective symptoms were not entirely consistent with or
supported by the evidence of record (AR 28-29).
On
January 8, 2019, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's
application for review. (AR 1-6).
III.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Administrative Evaluation of Disability Claims
To
qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show that he
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), 416.905. To be
considered disabled, a claimant must have an impairment of
such severity that he 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, 416.920).
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 ...