United States District Court, C.D. California
NICOLE M. CASTRO, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, [1] Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
For the
reasons discussed below, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant
to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this matter is
remanded for further administrative action consistent with
this Opinion.
PROCEEDINGS
On
February 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking review
of the denial of her application for Disability Insurance
Benefits. (Docket Entry No. 1). The parties have consented to
proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge. (Docket Entry Nos. 11-12). On July 23, 2019, Defendant
filed an Answer along with the Administrative Record
(“AR”). (Docket Entry Nos. 17-18). On November
21, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (“Joint
Stip.”) setting forth their respective positions
regarding Plaintiff's claim. (Docket Entry No. 26).
The
Court has taken this matter under submission without oral
argument. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.
BACKGROUND
AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
On
February 8, 2016, Plaintiff, formerly employed as an
administrative assistant and receptionist (see AR 44-45,
147-52, 195-97), filed an application for Disability
Insurance Benefits, alleging an inability to work because of
a disabling condition since September 1, 2015. (See AR
126-27). The Commissioner denied Plaintiff's application,
initially and on reconsideration. (AR 66-75). On November 1,
2017, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, testified at a
hearing before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”),
James Carberry, who also heard testimony from and vocational
expert Ms. Cicero. (See AR 37-64).
On
January 10, 2018, the ALJ issued a decision denying
Plaintiff's application. (See AR 21-30). Applying the
five-step sequential process, the ALJ found at step one that
Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since September 1, 2015. (AR 23). At step two, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments -- “degenerative disc disease status post
cervical fusion, left shoulder degenerative joint disease,
and fibromyalgia.” (AR 24).[2]At step three, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or equaled the severity
of one of the listed impairments.[3] (AR 25). The ALJ then
assessed Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(“RFC”)[4] and concluded that she could perform light
work[5]
with the following limitations:
[Plaintiff] can lift, carry, push and pull 20 pounds
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; can stand and walk 2
hours out of 8 hours; can sit for 6 hours out of 8 hours; can
never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; can occasionally
climb ramps and stairs; can occasionally balance, stoop,
kneel, crouch and crawl; and can frequently reach overhead
and perform gross and fine manipulation.
(AR 25-28).
At step
four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was able to perform
past relevant work as an administrative assistant and
receptionist as generally performed (AR 28-29), and therefore
found that Plaintiff was not under a disability led within
the meaning of the Social Security Act from the alleged
disability onset date, September 1, 2015, to the date of the
decision. (AR 29-30).
The
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on
December 27, 2018. (See AR 5-9). Plaintiff now seeks judicial
review of the ALJ's decision, which stands as the final
decision of the Commissioner. See 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g), 1383(c).
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
This
Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine if
it is free of legal error and supported by substantial
evidence. See Brewes v. Comm'r, 682 F.3d 1157,
1161 (9th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence” is
more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir.
2014). To determine whether substantial evidence supports a
finding, “a court must consider the record as a whole,
weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that
detracts from the [Commissioner's] conclusion.”
Id. As a result, “[w]here the evidence can
reasonably support either affirming or reversing [the
ALJ's] decision, [a court] may not substitute [its]
judgment for that of the [ALJ].” Id. at 1010
(citations omitted).[6]
PLAINTIFF'S
CONTENTION
Plaintiff
alleges that the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiff's
testimony about her symptoms and limitations. (See Joint
Stip. at 4-12, 17-18).
DISCUSSION
After
consideration of the record as a whole, the Court finds that
Plaintiff's claim of error warrants a remand for further
consideration.
A. The
ALJ Failed To Provide Clear and Convincing Reasons For
Rejecting Plaintiff's Subjective Symptom Testimony
Plaintiff
asserts that the ALJ did not provide clear and convincing
reasons for rejecting Plaintiff's testimony about her
symptoms and limitations. (See Joint Stip. at 4-12,
17-18). Defendant asserts that the ALJ provided specific and
permissible reasons for finding Plaintiff not fully credible.
(See Joint Stip. at 12-17).
1.
Legal Standard
When
assessing a claimant's credibility regarding subjective
pain or intensity of symptoms, the ALJ must engage in a
two-step analysis. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d
664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017). First, the ALJ must determine if
there is medical evidence of an impairment that could
reasonably produce the symptoms alleged. Id.,
(citing Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15
(9th Cir. 2014)). “In this analysis, the claimant is
not required to show that her impairment could reasonably be
expected to cause the severity of the symptom she has
alleged; she need only show that it could reasonably have
caused some degree of the symptom.” Id.
(emphasis in original) (citation omitted). “Nor must a
claimant produce objective medical evidence of the pain or
fatigue itself, or the severity thereof.” Id.
(citation omitted).
If the
claimant satisfies this first step, and there is no evidence
of malingering, the ALJ must provide specific, clear and
convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant's testimony
about the symptom severity. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 678
(citation omitted); see also Smolen, 80
F.3d at 1284 (“[T]he ALJ may reject the claimant's
testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms only if he
makes specific findings stating clear and convincing reasons
for doing so.”); Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[U]nless an ALJ
makes a finding of malingering based on affirmative evidence
thereof, he or she may only find an applicant not credible by
making specific findings as to credibility and stating clear
and convincing reasons for each.”). “This is not
an easy requirement to meet: The clear and convincing
standard is the most demanding required in Social Security
cases.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1015 (citation
omitted).
Where,
as here, the ALJ finds that a claimant suffers from a
medically determinable physical or mental impairment that
could reasonably be expected to produce her alleged symptoms,
the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity and persistence of
those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms
limit an individual's ability to perform work-related
activities for an adult.” Soc. Sec. Ruling
(“SSR”) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3.[1] SSR 16-3p
superseded SSR 96-7p and ...