United States District Court, C.D. California
Daryl J. B., [1]Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROZELLA A. OLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Daryl J. B. (“Plaintiff”) challenges the
Commissioner's denial of his application for a period of
disability and disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) and supplemental security income
(“SSI”). For the reasons stated below, the
decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
On
August 11, 2016, Plaintiff applied for DIB alleging
disability beginning December 24, 2015. (Administrative
Record (“AR”) 97-98, 115-117.) The Social
Security Administration denied the application on March 21,
2017. (AR 115.) Plaintiff also protectively applied for
supplemental security income on May 25, 2017. (AR 155.) This
application was also denied. (AR 155.) Both the DIB and SSI
applications were denied upon reconsideration on July 6,
2017. (AR 114, 133, 152, 155.) Plaintiff filed a written
request for a hearing, and a hearing was held on May 21,
2018. (AR 50, 156.) Represented by counsel, Plaintiff
appeared and testified, along with an impartial vocational
expert. (AR 55-86.) Plaintiff's mother also testified at
the hearing. (AR 86-95.)
On July
10, 2018, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled pursuant to
the Social Security Act, from the alleged onset date through
the date of decision. (AR 32.) The Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's initial request for review on August 29,
2018. (AR 15-17.) The Appeals Council set aside this denial
after Plaintiff submitted additional information, but again
denied Plaintiff's request for review. (AR 8-10.)
Plaintiff filed this action on February 8, 2019. (Dkt. No.
1.)
The ALJ
followed the familiar five-step sequential evaluation process
to assess whether Plaintiff was disabled under the Social
Security Act. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5
(9th Cir. 1995). At step one, the ALJ found
that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since December 24, 2015, the alleged onset date
(“AOD”). (AR 31.) At step two,
the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: uncontrolled diabetes mellitus with kidney
complications and peripheral neuropathy; arthropathy of
cervical spine; degenerative disc disease of lumbar spine;
history of metastatic neoplastic disease with testicular
cancer metastatic to lymph nodes; carpal tunnel, right hand;
and obesity. (AR 31.) At step three, the ALJ
found that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the
severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1.” (AR 32.)
Before
proceeding to step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
[P]erform sedentary work . . . except [Plaintiff] can lift,
carry, push and pull up to 10 pounds occasionally, less than
10 pounds frequently; sit up to six hours in an eight hour
workday; stand and/or walk up to two hours in an eight hour
workday; frequently push and pull with bilateral upper and
lower extremities; occasionally climb ramps and stairs; no
climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds; occasionally balance,
stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; occasionally walk on uneven
terrain; frequently reach with bilateral upper extremities;
frequently handle and finger with bilateral hands; and
occasionally operate foot controls with bilateral lower
extremities. [Plaintiff] needs to avoid even moderate
exposure to hazards (i.e. walking on uneven terrain, working
with heights).
(AR 32-33.)
At
step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was
unable to perform past relevant work as a radio station
program director. (AR 37-38.) At step five,
the ALJ found that Plaintiff is capable of making a
successful adjustment to other work that exists in
significant numbers in the national economy and thus
determined that Plaintiff has not been under a disability
from the AOD through the date of decision. (AR 38-39.)
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the
Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. A court must
affirm an ALJ's findings of fact if they are supported by
substantial evidence and if the proper legal standards were
applied. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59
(9th Cir. 2001). “‘Substantial evidence'
means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a
preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
person might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d
1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). An ALJ can
satisfy the substantial evidence requirement “by
setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and
conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation
thereof, and making findings.” Reddick v.
Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation
omitted).
“[T]he
Commissioner's decision cannot be affirmed simply by
isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. Rather,
a court must consider the record as a whole, weighing both
evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the
Secretary's conclusion.” Aukland v.
Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“‘Where evidence is susceptible to more than one
rational interpretation,' the ALJ's decision should
be upheld.” Ryan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Burch v.
Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005)); see
Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882 (“If the evidence can
support either affirming or reversing the ALJ's
conclusion, we may not substitute our judgment for that of
the ALJ.”). The Court may review only “the
reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination
and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not
rely.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th
Cir. 2007) (citing Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d
871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003)).
IV.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the ALJ
properly considered the relevant medical evidence of record
in assessing Plaintiff's RFC; and (2) whether the ALJ
properly considered Plaintiff's subjective statements,
along with his mother's, in assessing Plaintiff's
RFC. (See Joint Submission (“JS”) 4.)
For the reasons below, the Court affirms.
A.
The ALJ's Credibility Determination Is Supported By
Substantial Evidence[2]
Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient
reasons for rejecting his subjective testimony. (See
JS 12-15.) ...