Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190708_0009423.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-08-22 15:34:34
Document Index: 168259407

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 416', '§ 1382', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 416']

FindACase™ | Schenone v. Saul
Schenone v. Saul
PAULA LYNN SCHENONE Plaintiff,
ALLISON CLAIRE JUDGE.
Plaintiff protectively applied for DIB and SSI on June 24, 2014. Administrative Record (“AR”) 286-97.[2] The disability onset date for both applications was alleged to be January 12, 2010. AR 286, 288. The applications were disapproved initially and on reconsideration. AR 125, 135, 137-38, 146, 154-56. On January 17, 2017, ALJ Daniel G. Heely presided over the hearing on plaintiff's challenge to the disapprovals. AR 93-114 (transcript). Plaintiff was present and testified at the hearing. AR 93-95. Plaintiff was represented at the hearing by attorney Jeffrey Duarte, who continues to represent her in this appeal. Id.
On May 22, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, finding plaintiff “not disabled” under Sections 216(i) and 223(d) of Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(d), and Section 1614(a)(3)(A) of Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). AR 62-73 (decision). On July 25, 2017, plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council. AR 283, 366-79. On April 13, 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 (decision).
Plaintiff filed this action on June 7, 2018. ECF No. 1; see 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. ECF Nos. 6, 7. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, based upon the Administrative Record filed by the Commissioner, have been briefed. ECF Nos. 12 (plaintiff's summary judgment motion), 19 (Commissioner's summary judgment motion).
Plaintiff was born in 1955, and accordingly was 54 years old on the alleged disability onset date, making her a “person closely approaching advanced age” under the regulations. AR 33; see 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1563(d), 416.963(d). Plaintiff has a high school education; can communicate in English; and has past work experience as a salesperson, a beauty advisor, and an office worker. AR 320-22.
The claimant bears the burden of proof in the first four steps of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a) (“In general, you have to prove to us that you are blind or disabled”), 416.912(a) (same); Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5. However, “[a]t the fifth step of the sequential analysis, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant is not disabled and can engage in work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012); Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5.
2. [Step 1] The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 12, 2010, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.). (Exhibits 6D; 8D)
3. [Step 2] The claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine; and history of left ankle fracture in 2012, status post open reduction internal fixation. (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
5. [RFC] After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) with the following limitations: The claimant can sit for six hours of an 8-hour workday and stand and/or walk for six hours of an 8-hour workday, with normal breaks. She can lift and/or carry 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally. The claimant can never climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds, and can occasionally climb ramps and stairs. She can never work around hazards like moving dangerous machinery. She cannot operate motor vehicles.
6. [Step 4] The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a beauty culturist (cosmetologist). This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from January 12, 2010, through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f)).
AR 64-73.
As noted, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was “not disabled” under Sections 216(i) and 223(d) of Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(d), and Section 1614(a)(3)(A) of ...