Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20141104_0002371.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-26 22:53:56
Document Index: 241332350

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 405', '§ 423', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

NICOLE S. HAYES, Plaintiff,v.CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Plaintiff Nicole S. Hayes appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") which denied her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33 and 1381-83f, after a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and REMANDED.
At the time of the administrative hearing, plaintiff was a twenty-seven year old woman with a ninth grade education. Administrative Record ("AR") at 48.[1] Her past work experience includes employment as a cashier at the Dollar Store and a fast food worker at McDonald's and Burger King. AR at 73-74. Plaintiff was last gainfully employed in 2005, although her work activity after November 2000 did not rise to the level of substantial gainful activity. AR at 22, 205-06, 209.
Plaintiff protectively filed applications for SSI payments, DIB, and Children's Disability benefits on September 1, 2010.[2] In all her applications, plaintiff alleged disability beginning on November 20, 2000. Plaintiff asserts that she is disabled due to panic attacks, personality disorder, obesity, asthma, headaches, acid reflux, carpal tunnel syndrome, hypertension and leg swelling. AR at 22.
The Commissioner denied plaintiff's claims initially on January 7, 2011, and on reconsideration on June 14, 2011. AR at 88-97, 103-21. Plaintiff requested a hearing, which took place on March 8, 2012. AR at 38-81. On May 16, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision finding plaintiff not disabled and denied benefits based on his finding that plaintiff could perform a specific job existing in significant numbers in the national economy. AR at 16-32. The Appeals Council denied review on October 14, 2013, AR at 1-6, making the ALJ's ruling the "final decision" of the Commissioner as that term is defined by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On December 23, 2013, plaintiff timely filed the present action challenging the Commissioner's decision. Dkt. 1.
As the claimant, Ms. Hayes bears the burden of proving that she is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act (the "Act"). Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). The Act defines disability as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity" due to a physical or mental impairment which has lasted, or is expected to last, for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant is disabled under the Act only if her impairments are of such severity that she is unable to do her previous work, and cannot, considering her age, education, and work experience, engage in any other substantial gainful activity existing in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A); see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Commissioner has established a five step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The claimant bears the burden of proof during steps one through four. At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. Id. If a claimant is found to be disabled at any step in the sequence, the inquiry ends without the need to consider subsequent steps. Step one asks whether the claimant is presently engaged in "substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b).[3] If she is, disability benefits are denied. If she is not, the Commissioner proceeds to step two. At step two, the claimant must establish that she has one or more medically severe impairments, or combination of impairments, that limit her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant does not have such impairments, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the claimant does have a severe impairment, the Commissioner moves to step three to determine whether the impairment meets or equals any of the listed impairments described in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). A claimant whose impairment meets or equals one of the listings for the required twelve-month duration requirement is disabled. Id. When the claimant's impairment neither meets nor equals one of the impairments listed in the regulations, the Commissioner must proceed to step four and evaluate the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). Here, the Commissioner evaluates the physical and mental demands of the claimant's past relevant work to determine whether she can still perform that work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the claimant is able to perform her past relevant work, she is not disabled; if the opposite is true, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, taking into consideration the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099, 1100. If the Commissioner finds the claimant is unable to perform other work, then the claimant is found disabled and benefits may be awarded.
On May 16, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision finding the following:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2003. Under the application for child's insurance benefits, the claimant met the insured status requirements through June 21, 2006.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 20, 2000, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: panic disorder and personality disorder
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). The claimant can perform simple, routine tasks and follow short, simple instructions. The claimant can do work that needs little or no judgment and can perform simple duties that can be learned on the job in a short period. The claimant would have average ability to perform sustained work activities (i.e. can maintain attention and concentration; persistence and pace) in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis (i.e., 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule) within customary tolerances of employers rules regarding sick leave and absence. The claimant can have occasional interactions of a superficial nature with co-workers and supervisors and can work in proximity to co-workers but not in a cooperative or team effort. The claimant can deal with occasional work setting changes. The claimant cannot deal with the general public as in a sales position or where the general public is frequently encountered as an essential element of the work process. Incidental contact of a superficial nature with the general public is not precluded.
7. The claimant was born on XXXXX, 1984 and was 16 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date.[4]
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from November 20, 2000, ...