Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190819_0000582.EWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 08:13:12
Document Index: 731839392

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 401', '§1381', '§ 404', '§ 405', '§ 423', '§ 1382', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', 'art, 278']

FindACase™ | Elizabeth Linn S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
Elizabeth Linn S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
ELIZABETH LINN S., Plaintiff,
Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 13, 15. Plaintiff brings this action seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision, which denied her application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401-434, and her application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §1381-1383F. See Administrative Record (AR) at 1, 15, 30. After reviewing the administrative record and briefs filed by the parties, the Court is now fully informed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff filed her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income on July 8, 2015. See AR 15, 207-08, 209-218. In both applications, Plaintiff's alleged onset date of disability was March 1, 2015. AR 15, 207, 210. Plaintiff's applications were initially denied on September 22, 2015, see AR 129-137, and on reconsideration on January 10, 2016. See AR 140-151. Plaintiff then filed a request for a hearing on February 12, 2016. AR 152-53.
A hearing with Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Jesse K. Shumway occurred on April 13, 2017. AR 39, 41. On June 30, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined in the Act and was therefore ineligible for disability benefits or supplemental security income. AR 12-30. On June 11, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, AR 1-6, thus making the ALJ's ruling the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.
On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed the present action challenging the denial of benefits. ECF No. 6. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are properly before this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Social Security Act defines disability as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if the claimant's impairments are so severe that the claimant is not only unable to do her or her previous work, but cannot, considering claimant's age, education, and work experience, engage in any other substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
A district court's review of a final decision of the Commissioner is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of review under § 405(g) is limited, and the Commissioner's decision will be disturbed “only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1144, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing § 405(g)). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 1159.
In reviewing a denial of benefits, a district court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992). When the ALJ presents a reasonable interpretation that is supported by the evidence, it is not the role of the courts to second-guess it. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Even if the evidence in the record is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, if inferences reasonably drawn from the record support the ALJ's decision, then the court must uphold that decision. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002).