Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20200115_0000794.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-25 00:38:22
Document Index: 756595442

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 1381', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 423', '§ 423']

ORA MERRILL, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying her application for continuing disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34, and for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f.[1] For the reasons that follow, the court will GRANT plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, DENY the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand this case for an immediate award of benefits.
In a decision dated December 4, 2009, plaintiff was found disabled and eligible for DIB beginning October 7, 2003. AR 14, 320. In that decision, plaintiff was found capable of performing only unskilled, sedentary level work with frequent and unplanned breaks. AR 320.[2] In a continuing disability review (“CDR”), the agency re-evaluated and continued her disability on November 7, 2011. AR 14, 320. In a subsequent CDR decision issued on June 4, 2015, the agency determined that plaintiff's disability had ended on June 2, 2015, finding plaintiff able to perform light work. AR 14, 310-13. A state agency disability hearing officer denied plaintiff's request for reconsideration, and administrative law judge (ALJ) Sara A. Gillis affirmed after a hearing. AR 14-22, 270-99 (transcript), 317-23. Plaintiff appeared and testified at the hearing, and was represented by counsel. AR 270. Vocational Expert (VE) Ronald Hatakeyama also testified. Id. The ALJ's decision became final when the Appeals Council denied review. AR 1-4. Plaintiff then commenced this action for judicial review. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), ECF No. 1. 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. 13 (plaintiff's summary judgment motion), 14 (Commissioner's summary judgment motion), 16 (plaintiff's reply).
Plaintiff was born in 1980, and accordingly was 35 years old as of the disability review date, making her a “younger individual age 18-49” under the regulations. AR 21; see 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1563(c), 416.963(c) (same). Plaintiff has at least a high school education, and can communicate in English. AR 21.
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income are available for every eligible individual who is “disabled.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a)(1)(E) (DIB), 1381a (SSI). 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)).