Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140507_0000738.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 09:11:18
Document Index: 102722661

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 416']

| Alba v. Colvin
Alba v. Colvin
CHRISTOPHER ALBA, Plaintiff,v.CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Plaintiff has brought this matter for judicial review of defendant's denial of his applications for child's insurance and supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and Local Rule MJR 13, the parties have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the remaining record, the Court hereby finds that for the reasons set forth below, defendant's decision to deny benefits should be affirmed.
On November 5, 2010, plaintiff filed concurrent applications for child's insurance benefits and SSI, alleging disability as of January 1, 1995, due to multiple impairments including anxiety, depression and migraine headaches. See Administrative Record ("AR") 150-57, 170. Plaintiff's applications were denied upon initial administrative review and on reconsideration. See AR 79-109. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") on September 15, 2011, at which plaintiff, represented by counsel, appeared and testified, as did vocational expert Steve M. Floyd. See AR 39-73.
On October 25, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision in which plaintiff was determined to be not disabled. See AR 16-38. Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision was denied by the Appeals Council on April 1, 2013, making the ALJ's decision defendant's final decision. See AR 1-6; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.981, § 416.1481. On June 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of the ALJ's decision. See Dkt. No. 5. The administrative record was filed with the Court on October 1, 2013. See Dkt. No.13. The parties have completed their briefing, and thus this matter is now ripe for judicial review and a decision by the Court.
Plaintiff argues the ALJ's decision should be reversed and remanded to defendant for payment of benefits, because the ALJ erred in: (1) evaluating plaintiff's severe impairments; (2) evaluating the medical evidence in the record; and (3) discounting plaintiff's credibility. Dkt. No. 15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court disagrees that the ALJ erred in determining plaintiff to be not disabled, and therefore finds that defendant's decision should be affirmed.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at step two by finding plaintiff's migraine headaches and irritable bowel syndrome ("IBS") not severe impairments. Dkt. No. 15, pp 4-8. Plaintiff asserts this error is significant because these impairments would cause him to miss work at least two days a month and the vocational expert testified that this level of absenteeism would preclude an individual from maintaining employment. Dkt. No. 15, pp 7-8 (citing AR 71).
Defendant employs a five-step "sequential evaluation process" to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. If the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any particular step thereof, the disability determination is made at that step, and the sequential evaluation process ends. See id.
At step two of the evaluation process, the ALJ must determine if an impairment is "severe." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, § 416.920. An impairment is "not severe" if it does not "significantly limit" a claimant's mental or physical abilities to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (c), § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (c); see also SSR ("SSR") 96-3p, 1996 WL 374181 *1. Basic work activities are those "abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b), § 416.921(b); SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856 *3. An impairment is not severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has "no more than a minimal effect on an individual[']s ability to work." SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856 *3; see also Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996); Yuckert v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 303, 306 (9th Cir.1988).
Although the ALJ must take into account a claimant's pain and other symptoms (see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, § 416.929) at step two of the sequential evaluation, the severity determination is made solely on the ...