Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01621-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Emily Anne Bradbury
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMILY ANNE BRADBURY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-JDP (SS)

ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING

THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ECF Nos. 18 & 20

Plaintiff challenges the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title 

XVI of the Social Security Act. Both parties have moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 18

& 20. The court grants plaintiff’s motion, denies the Commissioner’s, and remands the matter for 

further proceedings.

Standard of Review

An Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying an application for disability 

benefits will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record and if the correct 

legal standards have been applied. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th 

Cir. 2006). “‘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 

Case 2:22-cv-01621-JDP Document 22 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

support a conclusion.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). 

“The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical 

testimony, and resolving ambiguities.” Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 

2001) (citations omitted). “Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” 

Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the court will not affirm on 

grounds upon which the ALJ did not rely. Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“We are constrained to review the reasons the ALJ asserts.”).

A five-step sequential evaluation process is used in assessing eligibility for Social 

Security disability benefits. Under this process the ALJ is required to determine: (1) whether the 

claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a medical 

impairment (or combination of impairments) that qualifies as severe; (3) whether any of the 

claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal the severity of one of the impairments in 20 

C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and 

(5) whether the claimant can perform other specified types of work. See Barnes v. Berryhill, 895 

F.3d 702, 704 n.3 (9th Cir. 2018). The claimant bears the burden of proof for the first four steps 

of the inquiry, while the Commissioner bears the burden at the final step. Bustamante v. 

Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Background

Plaintiff filed an application for SSI, alleging disability beginning August 1, 2001. 

Administrative Record (“AR”) 175-83. After her application was denied initially and upon 

reconsideration, plaintiff appeared and testified at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge 

(“ALJ”). AR 56-76, 108-12, 118-22. On June 14, 2021, the ALJ issued a decision finding 

plaintiff not disabled. AR 40-49. Specifically, the ALJ found that:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 

November 15, 2019, the application date.

2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: posttraumatic 

stress disorder (PTSD), depression and bipolar disorders; asthma, 

Case 2:22-cv-01621-JDP Document 22 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

obesity, and degenerative disc disease.

* * * 

3. The claimant 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.

* * *

4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned 

finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to 

perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except no 

climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and, occasional climbing 

of ramps or stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, 

crawling; avoid concentrated exposure to pulmonary irritants and 

hazards (dangerous moving machinery and unprotected heights); 

simple routine and repetitive tasks; no public interaction; no 

tandem joint or shared tasks. 

* * *

5. The claimant has no past relevant work.

6. The claimant was born [in] 1973 and was 46 years old, which is 

defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the 

application was filed. 

7. The claimant has a limited education.

8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant 

does not have past relevant work.

9. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and 

residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant 

numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

* * *

10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the 

Social Security Act, since November 15, 2019, the date this 

application was filed.

AR 42-49 (citations to the code of regulations omitted).

Case 2:22-cv-01621-JDP Document 22 Filed 01/17/24 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council, which denied the request. AR 24-29. 

She now seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). 

Analysis

Plaintiff raises two arguments. First, she contends that the ALJ’s mental RFC 

determination is not supported by substantial evidence because he failed to fully develop the 

record. ECF No. 18 at 2. Second, she argues the ALJ improperly rejected her subjective 

complaints about her physical impairments, specifically her back and shoulder pain and the 

propensity for her leg to “go out” and cause her to fall. ECF No. 18 at 8. I find the second 

argument persuasive and remand for additional proceedings on that basis. I find it unnecessary to 

weigh the first argument.

Where, as here, the record establishes the existence of medically determinable 

impairments that could reasonably be expected to cause the symptoms at issue, “an ALJ must 

make a finding as to the credibility of the claimant’s statements about the symptoms and their 

functional effect.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). If the ALJ 

rejects the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms, he must do so by 

“offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 

1014-15 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

Meeting this standard requires the ALJ to “state specifically which symptom testimony is not 

credible and what facts in the record lead to that conclusion.” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284. 

Here, plaintiff testified that she experienced spikes in lower back pain three to four times a 

day and that these episodes could last anywhere from half an hour to hours. ECF No. 11-3 at 63, 

AR at 62. She went on to state that the pain spikes in her lower back radiated down into her hip 

and leg, sometimes causing her to left leg to “go out” on her. Id. at 64, AR at 63. Plaintiff 

testified that her shoulder pain spiked daily to a severe level—seven out of ten. Id. at 65, AR at 

64. And, with respect to mental health, she testified that she had panic attacks, heard 

disembodied voices, and saw unreal things on the edges of her peripheral vision on a daily basis. 

Id. at 68-89, AR at 67-68. 

Case 2:22-cv-01621-JDP Document 22 Filed 01/17/24 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

The ALJ, after finding that plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could 

reasonably be expected to cause her symptoms, discounted her subjective testimony. Id. at 47-48, 

AR at 46-47. In doing so, however, he failed to specify what testimony was not credible and 

what facts in the record cut against plaintiff’s credibility. The ALJ opined only, “[a]s for the 

claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms, they 

are inconsistent because the record does not support the general loss of functioning.” Id. at 48, 

AR at 47. And with respect to her complaints about mental health, he found “[t]he claimant’s 

reported anxiety and paranoia is inconsistent with the medical evidence of record.” Id. These 

cursory rejections, which fail to specify what testimony the ALJ found non-credible and broadly 

reference the record without identifying specific portions, are inconsistent with the requirement 

that the ALJ offer specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting a claimant’s subjective 

testimony. See Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because the ALJ 

failed to identify the testimony she found not credible, she did not link that testimony to the 

particular parts of the record supporting her non-credibility determination. This was legal 

error.”). 

I find it appropriate to remand this case for additional administrative proceedings. The 

ALJ’s failure to specify his reasons for rejecting plaintiff’s subjective testimony in this instance 

does not mean that valid reasons to reject the testimony could not be provided. See McKenzie v. 

Kijakazi, No. 1:20-cv-0327-JLT, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180323, *49 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2021) 

(“The matter may be remanded further proceedings where the ALJ failed to explain with 

sufficient specificity the basis for rejecting the claimant’s testimony.”). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED.

2. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 20, is DENIED.

3. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor.

Case 2:22-cv-01621-JDP Document 22 Filed 01/17/24 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01621-JDP Document 22 Filed 01/17/24 Page 6 of 6