United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT
(DOC. 1)
SHEILA
K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
On
September 18, 2018, Plaintiff Connie Streeter
(“Plaintiff) filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c) seeking judicial review of a
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the
“Commissioner” or “Defendant”)
denying her applications for disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). (Doc.
1.) The matter is currently before the Court on the
parties' briefs, which were submitted, without oral
argument, to the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, United States
Magistrate Judge.[2]
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
was born on August 1, 1971, completed high school, and
previously worked as a hotel front desk clerk, a medical
assistant, and as a stock clerk. (Administrative Record
(“AR”) 24, 43, 44, 54, 58, 69, 80, 219, 224, 225,
240.) Plaintiff filed a claim for DIB on January 13, 2015,
and for SSI payments on January 31, 2015, alleging she became
disabled on April 3, 2010, due to chronic back pain, chronic
knee pain, high blood pressure, obesity, fatigue, and
depression. (AR 15, 54-81, 201-210, 219-228, 240-57.)
At the
hearing, Plaintiff amended the alleged onset date of
disability to January 13, 2015 and withdrew her claim for
DIB, which was dismissed. (AR 15, 44.)
A.
Relevant Medical Evidence[3]
On May
12, 2017, orthopedic surgeon Arthur I. Garfinkel, M.D.
performed a consultative physical examination of Plaintiff.
(AR 573-75.) He noted Plaintiff was unable to work because of
bilateral knee pain, bilateral shoulder pain, and numbness in
both hands. (AR 573.) Plaintiff reported that her
“upper extremity symptoms are secondary to chronically
using a cane, ” which she has done for the past five
years. (AR 573.)
Upon
examination, Dr. Garfinkel described Plaintiff as a
“well-developed markedly obese female in no acute
distress.” (AR 574.) Her gait was stiff and antalgic,
she was unable to tandem walk, and she had difficulty with
toe and heel standing. (AR 574.) Dr. Garfinkel found
Plaintiff unable to squat because of bilateral knee pain. (AR
574.) She used a single-point cane to help with her balance.
(AR 574.)
With
respect to Plaintiffs knees, Dr. Garfinkel noted they were
“tender, swollen, and warm.” (AR 574.) He found
crepitus with range of motion, which was guarded and
decreased. (AR 574.) Dr. Garfinkel found Plaintiffs left knee
had a “slight genu varum deformity.” (AR 574.) He
diagnosed Plaintiff with osteoarthritis in both knees and
with morbid obesity. (AR 574.)
Dr.
Garfinkel opined that Plaintiff should be precluded from
activities requiring squatting, kneeling, climbing,
balancing, creeping, and crawling. (AR 574.) Plaintiff should
also be precluded from activities requiring standing and/or
walking more than two hours in an eight-hour period, with no
more than 30 minutes of weightbearing at any one time. (AR
575.) According to Dr. Garfinkel, Plaintiff should be allowed
to change position as needed for comfort while sitting and
should be limited in terms of pushing and pulling with her
lower extremities. (AR 575.) He further opined that
Plaintiffs cane was “medically necessary because of her
knee pain as well as her poor balance from her morbid
obesity, ” as she is “markedly top heavy.”
(AR 575.)
B.
Administrative Proceedings
The
Commissioner denied Plaintiffs application for benefits
initially on June 16, 2015, and again on reconsideration on
August 26, 2015. (AR 99-104, 106-112.) Consequently,
Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”). (AR 113-129.) The ALJ conducted a
hearing on May 30, 2017. (AR 40-52.). Plaintiff appeared at
the hearing with her non-attorney representative and
testified. (AR 43-47.) A vocational expert (“VE”)
also testified. (AR 47-51.)
C.
The ALJ's Decision
In a
decision dated November 15, 2017, the ALJ found that
Plaintiff was not disabled, as defined by the Act. (AR
15-25.) The ALJ conducted the five-step disability analysis
set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. (AR 18-25.) The ALJ
decided that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since January 13, 2015, the amended alleged onset
date (step one). (AR 18.) At step two, the ALJ found
Plaintiffs following impairments to be severe: osteoarthritis
and morbid obesity. (AR 18-19.) Plaintiff did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R.
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I (“the Listings”)
(step three). (AR 19.)
The ALJ
then assessed Plaintiffs residual functional capacity
(RFC)[4] and applied the RFC assessment at steps
four and five. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)
(“Before we go from step three to step four, we assess
your residual functional capacity . . . . We use this
residual functional capacity assessment at both step four and
step five when we evaluate your claim at these
steps.”). The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the
RFC:
to perform at a reduced level: sedentary work as defined in
20 C.F.R. [ยงยง] 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except
could not be weight bearing for more than thirty minute [sic]
at any given time, changing positions as needed, and no
pushing or pulling with the lower extremities. ...