Source: http://or.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191217_0001714.DOR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 16:59:41
Document Index: 17082462

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 423', '§ 405', 'art, 454', '§ 416', '§416', '§ 416', '§ 416', 'art 404', '§ 416', 'art 404']

FindACase™ | Ian G. v. Commissioner of Social Security
Ian G. v. Commissioner of Social Security
IAN G., [1] Plaintiff,
GEORGE J. WALL Law Offices of George J. Wall Attorney for Plaintiff
MICHAEL W. PILE Acting Regional Chief Counsel MARTHA A. BODEN Special Assistant United States Attorney
Plaintiff Ian G. seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) in which the Commissioner denied Plaintiff's applications for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.[2] This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff protectively filed his application for SSI benefits. Tr. 29, 297.[3] As noted, Plaintiff initially alleged a claim for childhood disability, but on May 13, 2019, he amended his claim to seek only adult disability and now asserts a disability onset date of December 7, 2015. PI.'s Brief (#18) at 2. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and on reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held hearings on May 2, 2017, and June 15, 2017. Plaintiff and a vocational expert (VE) testified at the hearing on May 2, 2017. Tr. 71-97. Plaintiff was not present at the hearing on June 15, 2017. A medical expert (ME) testified at that hearing, and Plaintiff was represented by an attorney at both hearings. Tr. 98-125.
On August 30, 2017, the ALJ issued an opinion in which she found Plaintiff is not disabled and, therefore, is not entitled to benefits. Tr. 29-53. Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council. On July 26, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request to review the ALJ's decision, and the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Tr. 1-4. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07 (2000).
On September 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court seeking review of the Commissioner's decision.
Plaintiff was born on December 7, 1997. Tr. 33, 297. Plaintiff was 18 years old on his alleged disability onset date. Tr. 33. Plaintiff received formal education through the second grade and received home schooling thereafter. Tr. 82, 104. Plaintiff does not have any past relevant work experience. Tr. 51.
Plaintiff alleges disability due to bipolar disorder, social anxiety, cognitive disorder, autism, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Tr. 126.
Except as noted, Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ's summary of the medical evidence. After carefully reviewing the medical records, this Court adopts the ALJ's summary of the medical evidence. See Tr. 34-40, 49-51.
The initial burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish disability. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). To meet this burden, a claimant must demonstrate his inability "to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The ALJ must develop the record when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence. McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001)).
The district court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based on proper legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See also Brewes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence is "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Molina, 614 F.3d. at 1110-11 (quoting Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009)). It is more than a mere scintilla [of evidence] but less than a preponderance. Id. (citing Valentine, 574 F.3d at 690) .
The ALJ is responsible for evaluating a claimant's testimony, resolving conflicts in the medical evidence, and resolving ambiguities. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). The court must weigh all of the evidence whether it supports or detracts from the Commissioner's decision. Ryan v. Comm'r of Soc Sec, 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). Even when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the court must uphold the Commissioner's findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record. Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2012). The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006).
At Step One the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner determines the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity (SGA). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). See also Keyser v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec, 648 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2011).
At Step Two the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner determines the claimant does not have any medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a)(4)(ii). See also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724.
If the Commissioner proceeds beyond Step Three, he must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC). The claimant's RFC is an assessment of the sustained, work-related physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a regular and continuing basis despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p. "A 'regular and continuing basis' means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent schedule." SSR 96-8p, at *1. In other words, the Social Security Act does not require complete incapacity to be disabled. Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 2011)(citing Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989)).
If the Commissioner reaches Step Five, he must determine whether the claimant is able to do any other work that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). See also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724-25. Here the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Lockwood v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2010). The Commissioner may satisfy this burden through the testimony of a VE or by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (or the grids) set forth in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 2. If the Commissioner meets this burden, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)(1).
At Step One the ALJ found Plaintiff has not engaged in any substantial gainful activity. Tr. 34, 51.
At Step Two the ALJ found Plaintiff has the severe impairments of "mental health conditions variously described as depression, social anxiety, attention deficit, and learning disorders." Tr. 34, 46.
At Step Three the ALJ concluded Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments do not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1. Tr. 35, 46. The ALJ found Plaintiff has the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with the following nonexertional limitations: can only understand and remember simple instructions; has sufficient concentration, persistence, or pace to complete simple, routine tasks for a normal workday and workweek with normal work breaks; can work at a regular but not fast production pace; should not have interactions with the ...