Source: http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190826_0010280.DNV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-05 14:18:56
Document Index: 342365359

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 405', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 405', 'art, 296', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Gibson v. Berryhill
DELORIS A. GIBSON, Plaintiff,
The case involves review of an administrative action by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Deloris A. Gibson's (“Plaintiff”) application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion for reversal and remand (ECF No. 25), filed January 23, 2017, and the Commissioner's response and cross-motion to affirm (ECF Nos. 26 and 27), filed February 22, 2017. Plaintiff did not file a reply. This matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge on May 2, 2019 for a report of findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and Local Rule IB 1-4.
On March 1, 2012, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Act and supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Act, alleging an onset date of December 1, 2008, which Plaintiff later amended to February 9, 2011. AR[1] 95. Plaintiff's claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 135-39, 141-148. A video hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on October 2, 2014. AR 45-72. On February 10, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled. AR 23-38. The ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision when the Appeals Council denied review on June 6, 2016. AR 1-6. Plaintiff, on August 10, 2016, commenced this action for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). (See IFP App. (ECF No. 1).)
The ALJ followed the five-step sequential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. AR 28-37. At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity from the alleged onset date of February 9, 2011 through the date of the decision. AR 28. At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had medically determinable “severe” impairments of history of ischemic heart disease and degenerative disc disease. Id. At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. AR 33. At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except: she can lift and carry ten pounds occasionally and five pounds frequently; she can occasionally climb ramps and stairs; she can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; she cannot climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; and she should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme heat, cold, and hazards (e.g., unprotected heights and dangerous machinery). Id. The ALJ found that Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work as a child support officer. AR 37. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not under a disability at any time from February 9, 2011 through the date of the decision. Id.
Administrative decisions in social security disability benefits cases are reviewed under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002). Section 405(g) states: “Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action . . . brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.” The court may enter “upon the pleadings and transcripts of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” Id. The Ninth Circuit reviews a decision affirming, modifying, or reversing a decision of the Commissioner de novo. See Batson v. Comm'r, 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004).
The individual seeking disability benefits has the initial burden of proving disability. Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir. 1995). To meet this burden, the individual must demonstrate the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected . . . to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Specifically, the individual must provide “specific medical evidence” in support of her claim for disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1514. If the individual establishes an inability to perform her prior work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the individual can perform other substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721.
The ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process in determining whether an individual is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987). If at any step the ALJ determines that he can make a finding of disability or non-disability, a determination will be made, and no further evaluation is required. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24 (2003). Step one requires the ALJ to determine whether the individual is engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). SGA is defined as work activity that is both substantial and gainful; it involves doing significant physical or mental activities usually for pay or profit. Id. § 404.1572(a)-(b). If the individual is engaged in SGA, then a finding of not disabled is made. If the individual is not engaged in SGA, then the analysis proceeds to the step two. Step two addresses whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that significantly limits her from performing basic work activities. Id. § 404.1520(c). An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe when medical and other evidence establishes only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that would have no more than a minimal effect on the individual's ability to work. Id. § 404.1521; see also Social Security Rulings (“SSRs”) 85-28, 96-3p, and 96-4p.[2] If the individual does not have a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, then a finding of not disabled is made. If the individual has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, then the analysis proceeds to step three.
Step three requires the ALJ to determine whether the individual's impairments or combination of impairments meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, and 404.1526. If the individual's impairment or combination of impairments meet or equal the criteria of a listing and the duration requirement (20 C.F.R. § 404.1509), then a finding of disabled is made. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(h). If the individual's impairment or combination of impairments does not meet or equal the criteria of a listing or meet the duration requirement, then the analysis proceeds to step four.
Before moving to step four, however, the ALJ must first determine the individual's residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is a function-by-function assessment of the individual's ability to do physical and mental work-related activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); see also SSR 96-8p. In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence, such as all symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; see also SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p. To the extent that statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the ALJ must make a finding on the credibility of the individual's statements based on a consideration of the entire case record. The ALJ must also consider opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p, 96-6p, and 06-3p.
Step four requires the ALJ to determine whether the individual has the RFC to perform her past relevant work (“PRW”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). PRW means work performed either as the individual actually performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy within the last 15 years or 15 years before the date that disability must be established. In addition, the work must have lasted long enough for the individual to learn the job and perform a SGA. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(b) and 404.1565. If the individual has the RFC to perform her past ...