Source: http://or.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190926_0001349.DOR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 07:32:11
Document Index: 325022486

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', 'art, 400', '§ 422', '§ 405', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404']

JAMES C., [1] Plaintiff,
George J. Wall and Caitlin S. Laumaker, Law Offices of George J. Wall, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney, and Renata Gowie, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Lisa Goldoftas, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Attorneys for Defendant.
James C. (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the “Act”). For the following reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
The district court must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is based on the proper legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). “Substantial evidence” means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Bray v. Comm ’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). It means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039).
When the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner’s conclusion must be upheld. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). Variable interpretations of the evidence are insignificant if the Commissioner’s interpretation is a rational reading of the record, and this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Batson v. Comm ’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004). “[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)). A reviewing court, however, may not affirm the Commissioner on a ground upon which the Commissioner did not rely. Id; see also Bray, 554 F.3d at 1226.
Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI on February 25, 2015, alleging disability beginning in August 2012 due to mental impairments, including bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. AR 13, 183-95, 233, 328, 696. Plaintiff was born in 1984 and has a high school education and a bachelor’s degree in business administration. AR 22, 34, 36, 183, 190, 224. He has past work experience as a restaurant waiter/server and as a telemarketer. AR 37, 54, 250.
The Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s application initially and upon reconsideration. AR 112-22. Thereafter, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). AR 135-36. In a decision dated March 10, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled. AR 16-26. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. AR 1–6; see also 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(a). Plaintiff seeks judicial review of that decision. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
A claimant is disabled if he or she is unable 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). “Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential process for determining whether an applicant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.” Keyser v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2011); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987). Each step is potentially dispositive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The five-step sequential process asks the following series of questions: