United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF
THE COMMISSIONER
MARIA
A. AUDERO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On
October 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking review
of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision
terminating her Supplemental Security Income benefits, which
she had been receiving pursuant to Title 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 affirmed, and this
action is dismissed with prejudice.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
On
October 10, 2012, the Commissioner found that Plaintiff was
disabled beginning on May 11, 2012 due to an organic mental
disorder and epilepsy. (Administrative Record [AR] 18, 92.)
The Commissioner found that Plaintiff's mental conditions
met the requirements of Listing 12.02 (Organic Mental
Disorders). (AR 87-88.)
On
November 22, 2016, the Commissioner determined that Plaintiff
was no longer disabled as of November 1, 2016. (AR 18, 105.)
On reconsideration, a disability hearing officer upheld the
decision. (AR 18, 138-47.) Plaintiff requested a hearing
before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (AR
151.) At a hearing held on December 11, 2017, at which
Plaintiff waived her right to counsel, the ALJ heard
testimony from Plaintiff, Plaintiff's son, and a
vocational expert. (AR 33-81.) In a decision issued on
February 6, 2018, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's
disability had ended as of November 1, 2016. (AR 18-28.)
The ALJ
applied the evaluation for medical improvement, as set out in
20 C.F.R. § 416.994, to make the following findings. (AR
19.) Since November 1, 2016, Plaintiff did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled
the severity of a listed impairment. (AR 20.) Since November
1, 2016, there had been medical improvement. (AR 22.) The
medical improvement was related to the ability to work
because Plaintiff no longer met or equaled the requirements
of a listed impairment. (Id.) Since November 1,
2016, Plaintiff continued to have severe impairments
consisting of “epilepsy/seizure disorder” and an
organic mental disorder. (AR 23.) Beginning on November 1,
2016, Plaintiff had a residual functional capacity for medium
work with additional non-exertional limitations including a
limitation to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks.
(Id.) Although Plaintiff had no past relevant work
(AR 26), her residual functional capacity enabled her to
perform other work in the national economy, in the
occupations of “marker, laundry, ” “linen
room attendant, ” and “stores, laborer” (AR
27). Thus, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's disability
ended on November 1, 2016 and that she had not become
disabled again since that date. (Id.)
On
October 3, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's
request for review. (AR 1-6.) Thus, the ALJ's decision
became the final decision of the Commissioner.
DISPUTED
ISSUE
The
disputed issue here is “whether the ALJ's
conclusion that substantial medical improvement occurred on
November 1, 2016 is supported by substantial evidence.”
(ECF No. 25, Parties' Joint Stipulation [“Joint
Stip.”] at 4.)
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 F.3d at 1035. Where
evidence is susceptible of more than one rational
interpretation, the Commissioner's interpretation must be
upheld. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th
Cir. 2007).
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard.
Once a
claimant is found to be disabled, a presumption of continuing
disability arises in her favor. See Bellamy v. Secretary
of Health & Human Services,755 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th
Cir. 1985) (citing Murray v. Heckler,722 F.2d 499,
500 (9th Cir. 1983)). To rebut the presumption, the
Commissioner has the ...