Source: http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191118_0013661.DNV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-08 23:08:17
Document Index: 572022719

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 405', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Giles v. Berryhill
TAMARA F. GILES, Plaintiff,
This case involves review of an administrative action by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Tamara F. Giles' (“Plaintiff) application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”) and supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act. The court has reviewed Plaintiffs motion for reversal or remand (ECF No. 20), filed December 22, 2016; the Commissioner's response and cross-motion to affirm (ECF No. 25), filed April 10, 2017; and Plaintiffs reply (ECF No. 26), filed April 28, 2017. The parties consented to the case being heard by a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on July 10, 2017. (ECF No. 27). This matter was assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge on May 2, 2019 for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Act, alleging an onset date of December 1, 2012. AR[1] 222-225, 226-233. Plaintiffs claim was denied initially on November 15, 2013, and on reconsideration on December 18, 2013. AR 148-153, 156-158. A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on November 17, 2015, where the ALJ heard testimony from Plaintiff and a vocational expert. AR 38-87. On February 26, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled. AR 17-31. The ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision when the Appeals Council denied review on May 12, 2016. AR 1-6. Plaintiff, on July 7, 2016, commenced this action for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (See IFP App. (ECF No. 1).)
The individual seeking disability benefits has the initial burden of proving disability. Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir 1995). To meet this burden, the individual must demonstrate the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected . . . to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). More specifically, the individual must provide “specific medical evidence” in support of his claim for disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1514. If the individual establishes an inability to perform his prior work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the individual can perform other substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721.
The ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process in determining whether an individual is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987). If at any step the ALJ determines that he can make a finding of disability or non-disability, a determination will be made, and no further evaluation is required. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24 (2003). Step one requires the ALJ to determine whether the individual is engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). SGA is defined as work activity that is both substantial and gainful; it involves doing significant physical or mental activities usually for pay or profit. Id. § 404.1572(a)-(b). If the individual is engaged in SGA, then a finding of “not disabled” is made. If the individual is not engaged in SGA, then the analysis proceeds to step two.
Step two addresses whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that significantly limits him from performing basic work activities. Id. § 404.1520(c). An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe when medical and other evidence establishes only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that would have no more than a minimal effect on the individual's ability to work. Id. § 404.1521; see also Social Security Rulings (“SSRs”) 85-28, 96-3p, and 96-4p.[2] If the individual does not have a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, then a finding of “not disabled” is made. If the individual has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, then the analysis proceeds to step three.
Step three requires the ALJ to determine whether the individual's impairments or combination of impairments meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, and 404.1526. If the individual's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the criteria of a listing and the duration requirement (20 C.F.R. § 404.1509), then a finding of disabled is made. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(h). If the individual's impairment or combination of impairments does not meet or equal the criteria of a listing or meet the duration requirement, then the analysis proceeds to step four.