Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190903_0012178.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-11-19 23:59:38
Document Index: 133940192

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 416', '§ 405', '§ 402', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Leach v. Commissioner of Social Security
LISA DEE LEACH, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying her application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34.[1] For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment will be DENIED, and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED.
Plaintiff applied for DIB on February 14, 2014. Administrative Record (“AR”) 204-10.[2]The disability onset date was alleged to be August 1, 2013. AR 204. The application was disapproved initially and on reconsideration. AR 133-38, 140-45. On August 3, 2016, ALJ Sheila Walters presided over the hearing on plaintiff's challenge to the disapprovals. AR 65-102 (transcript). Plaintiff, who appeared with counsel, was present and testified at the hearing. AR 67. Lorian Hyatt, a Vocational Expert (“VE”), also testified at the hearing. Id.
On December 20, 2016, the ALJ found plaintiff “not disabled” under Sections 216(i) and 223(d) of Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(d). AR 46-59 (decision). On May 17, 2018, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. AR 1-7.
Plaintiff filed this action on July 20, 2018. ECF No. 1; see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. ECF Nos. 6, 8. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, based upon the Administrative Record filed by the Commissioner, have been fully briefed. ECF Nos. 15 (plaintiff's summary judgment motion), 21 (Commissioner's summary judgment motion), 22 (reply).
Plaintiff was born in 1961, and accordingly was, at age 52, a person closely approaching advanced age under the regulations, [3] when she filed her application. AR 70. Plaintiff has at least a high school education and can communicate in English. AR 71-72.
Disability Insurance Benefits are available for every eligible individual who is “disabled.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(d)(1)(B)(ii). Plaintiff is “disabled” if she is “‘unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment . . . .'” Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987) (quoting identically worded provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A)).
The Commissioner uses a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an applicant is disabled and entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24-25 (2003) (setting forth the “five-step sequential evaluation process to determine disability” under Title II and Title XVI). The following summarizes the sequential evaluation:
Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c).
Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d).