Source: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180516_0001172.DMT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:46:02+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Sheila K. Kessler (“Plaintiff”) has filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Act, requesting judicial review of the final administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) regarding the denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. (Doc. 2.) The Commissioner has filed an Answer (Doc. 15) and the Administrative Record (“A.R.”). (Doc. 16).
For the reasons set forth herein, and after careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, the Court finds Plaintiff's motion should be DENIED, and the Commissioner's decision denying DIB should be AFFIRMED.
On April 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits, which is the subject of this action. (A.R. 185-188.) Plaintiff alleged she has been unable to work since August 30, 2012. (A.R. 185.) The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's application initially on July 19, 2013, and upon reconsideration on November 29, 2013. (A.R. 89-99; 100-111.) On April 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing. (A.R. 121-22.) Administrative Law Judge Michele M. Kelley (the “ALJ”) held a hearing on December 11, 2014. (A.R. 40-88.) On January 30, 2015, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Plaintiff not disabled. (A.R. 20-35.) Plaintiff requested review of the decision on March 11, 2015. (A.R. 9.) The ALJ's decision became final on June 21, 2016, when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (A.R. 1-5.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the instant action.
Plaintiff argues the ALJ committed reversible error by (1) failing to give proper weight to her treating psychiatrist's opinion; (2) erroneously finding she did not meet Listings 12.04 (depressive disorders) and 12.06 (anxiety disorders); (3) improperly discrediting her testimony; and (4) failing to properly weigh lay witness testimony.
The Social Security Act allows unsuccessful claimants to seek judicial review of the Commissioner's final agency decision. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The scope of judicial review is limited. The Court must affirm the Commissioner's decision unless it “is not supported by substantial evidence or it is based upon legal error.” Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1999). See also Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We may reverse the ALJ's decision to deny benefits only if it is based upon legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.”); Flaten v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995).
“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Tidwell, 161 F.3d at 601 (citing Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1997)). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Flaten, 44 F.3d at 1457. In considering the record as a whole, the Court must weigh both the evidence that supports and detracts from the ALJ's conclusions. Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985); Day v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1975)). The Court must uphold the denial of benefits if the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ's decision. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005); Flaten, 44 F.3d at 1457 (“If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing the Secretary's conclusion, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary.”). However, even if the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusions, the Court must set aside the decision if the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standards in weighing the evidence and reaching a conclusion. Benitez v. Califano, 573 F.2d 653, 655 (9th Cir. 1978) (quoting Flake v. Gardner, 399 F.2d 532, 540 (9th Cir. 1968)).
To qualify for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, a claimant must show two things: (1) she suffers from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous period of twelve months or more, or would result in death; and (2) the impairment renders the claimant incapable of performing the work she previously performed, or any other substantial gainful employment which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 423(d)(2)(A). A claimant must meet both requirements to be classified as disabled. Id.
Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2001).
Although the ALJ must assist the claimant in developing a record, the claimant bears the burden of proof during the first four steps, while the Commissioner bears the burden of proof at the fifth step. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098, n.3 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(d)). At step five, the Commissioner must “show that the claimant can perform some other work that exists in ‘significant numbers' in the national economy, taking into consideration the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.” Id. at 1100 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(3)).
Plaintiff claims to suffer from severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of the spine, depression, anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). She asserts that these impairments render her incapable of performing work she previously performed, or any other substantial gainful employment.
A hearing was held before the ALJ in Billings, Montana on December 11, 2014, and the following testimony was provided.

References: § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 404
 § 404