Source: http://or.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191230_0001792.DOR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 12:29:56
Document Index: 373708350

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 1381', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 422', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Crystal B. v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Crystal B. v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
CRYSTAL B., [1]Plaintiff,
Plaintiff Crystal B. seeks judicial review of the final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. This court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(g)(3). For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI on January 14, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of January 1, 1997. Tr. 13, 188-202. Her date last insured is December 31, 2010. Tr. 15. The Commissioner denied plaintiff's claim on May 15, 2015, and again upon reconsideration on June 18, 2015. Tr. 13. Plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing on July 7, 2015. Tr. 138. On April 12, 2017, plaintiff appeared for a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Mark Triplett. Tr. 13. At the hearing, plaintiff amended her alleged disability onset date to January 31, 2009. Id. After receiving testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert, Vernon G. Arne, the ALJ issued a decision on June 13, 2017, finding plaintiff not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Tr. 13-24. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review on November 24, 2018, making the ALJ's written decision the Commissioner's final decision and subject to judicial review by this court. Tr. 1-3; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210.
At step one, the ALJ found plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her amended alleged onset date of January 31, 2009. Tr. 15. At step two, the ALJ determined plaintiff suffered from the following severe medical impairments: major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic features; posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”); and borderline intellectual functioning. Id.
At step three, the ALJ found plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment. Tr. 16. The ALJ next assessed plaintiff's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and determined she could perform the full range of heavy or very heavy work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567, but was limited to “simple, routine tasks with a reasoning level of 1 or 2” and “occasional contact with the general public and with coworkers.” Tr. 18.
At step four, the ALJ found plaintiff was unable to perform her past relevant work as a vault cashier. Tr. 22-23.
At step five, the ALJ found that considering plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, she could perform jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy, including laundry laborer, hand packager, and vehicle cleaner. Tr. 23-24. Thus, the ALJ concluded plaintiff was not disabled at any time from January 31, 2009, the alleged onset date, through June 13, 2017, the date of the ALJ's decision. Tr. 24.
Plaintiff contends the ALJ erroneously rejected her subjective symptom testimony, the medical opinion evidence, and the lay witness testimony of her husband and sister.
A. Function Report
Plaintiff completed a function report on February 6, 2015. Tr. 249-56. She reported that she did not want to leave her house due to social anxiety, paranoia, and nervousness. Tr. 249. She would “hear things, ” and “always” saw “stuff from the corner of [her] eyes” that was not there. Id. She had nightmares about a prior abusive relationship, and could not stop thinking about why she had stayed with the abuser and did not call the police. Tr. 250.
Plaintiff cared for three of her children. Tr. 250. Because her boyfriend worked, she cooked, cleaned, and did laundry. Tr. 250-51. She reported spending about 15 minutes a day on each chore. Tr. 251. Plaintiff prepared “easy stuff” for her children during the day and would “try [to cook] a nice dinner.” Id. However, it took her “all day” to prepare meals because she did not know what to make and depended on internet recipes. Id.
Plaintiff was able to drive, but reported she could not go out alone because she needed “someone there for backup.” Tr. 252. However, she was capable of driving alone if necessary. Tr. 256. Plaintiff went shopping twice a month for an hour at a time. Tr. 252.
Plaintiff played games with her children, Tr. 250, but felt like a “crapy [sic] mom” because, although she made sure her children ate and showered, she never took them anywhere. Tr. 253. For hobbies, plaintiff said, “We color, play puzzles, game, sewing.” Tr. 253. In response to the question, “How often and how well do you do these things?, ” plaintiff responded, “All the time and pretty good.” Id. She stated that she used to be an outside person, who swam, bar-b-qued, and did “outside family thing[s], ” but “now I like to do all indoor stuff.” Id. She did not like to be out of the house very long because she did not want anyone to start talking with her or seeing what she was doing. Tr. 252.
Regarding personal care, plaintiff lacked the energy to shower some days. Tr. 251. She did not usually fix her hair, and sometimes ...