Carley G. v. Kijakazi

• Decision Date: 15 November 2022
• Docket Number: 21cv572-RBB
• Parties: CARLEY G., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

CARLEY G., Plaintiff,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. 21cv572-RBB

United States District Court, S.D. California

November 15, 2022

ORDER REGARDING JOINT MOTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 17]

Hon. Ruben B. Brooks, United States Magistrate Judge

On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff Carley G.^[1] commenced this action against Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of a final adverse decision for supplemental security income benefits [ECF No.

1

1].^[2] On December 10, 2021, Defendant filed the Administrative Record [ECF No. 14]. On May 10, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion for judicial review of final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [ECF No. 17]. Following the transfer of this matter from Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal to Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, Plaintiff consented to have this Court conduct all proceedings on July 21, 2022 [ECF No. 20].^[3]

For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Carley G. was born in 1994 and has a GED equivalency certificate. (Admin. R. 50, 446, ECF No. 14.)^[4] She previously worked part-time at a pizza restaurant and Subway sandwich shop. (Id. at 51-52.) On or about July 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (Id. at 26, 443.) She alleged that she had been disabled since August 1, 2016, due to gastroparesis and schizophrenia. (Id. at 445, 453.) Carley G.'s applications were denied on initial review and again on reconsideration. (Id. at 367-71, 375-80.) An administrative hearing was conducted telephonically on April 1, 2020, by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Kevin W. Messer. (Id. at 43.) On April 23, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision and concluded that Carley G. was not disabled. (Id. at 26-38.) Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ's decision; the Appeals Council denied the request on

2

February 16, 2021. (Id. at 1-7.) Plaintiff then commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Sections 405(g) and 421(d) of the Social Security Act allow unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of a final agency decision of the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g), 421(d) (West 2020). The scope of judicial review is limited, however, and the denial of benefits “‘will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.'” Brawner v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014). 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.'” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also Biestek v. Berryhill, __ U.S. ___, ___, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154, 203 L.Ed.2d 504 (2019). The court must consider the entire record, including the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner's conclusions. Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). If the evidence supports more than one rational interpretation, the court must uphold the ALJ's decision. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005); Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020). The district court may affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g). The matter may also be remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. Id.

To qualify for SSI benefits under the Social Security Act, a claimant must be determined to be disabled, defined as the inability to perform substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve

3

months or more. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.905 (2019). The Commissioner makes this assessment by employing a five-step analysis outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. See also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999) (describing five steps set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520).^[5] The burden of proof is on the claimant at steps one through four. Id. at 1098. First, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” If so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b) (2019). Second, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a “severe impairment or combination of impairments” that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If not, the claimant is not disabled. Id. § 416.920(c). Third, the medical evidence of the claimant's impairment is compared to a list of impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude work; if the claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, benefits are awarded. Id. § 416.920(d). If not, the claimant's residual functional capacity is assessed and the evaluation proceeds to step four. Id. § 416.920(e). Fourth, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant can do his or her past relevant work. If the claimant can do their past work, benefits are denied. Id. § 416.920(f). If the claimant cannot perform his or her past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. In step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can perform other work. Id. § 416.920(g). If the Commissioner meets this burden and proves that the claimant is able to perform other work that exists in the national economy, benefits are denied. Id.

4

III. DISCUSSION

A. ALJ's Decision

ALJ Messer determined at step one that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 9, 2018, the date of Plaintiff's SSI application (step one). (Admin. R. 28, ECF No. 14.) At step two, he found that Carley G.'s severe impairments included gastroparesis status-post implantation of a gastric stimulator, irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety, cognitive impairment, and schizophrenia. (Id. at 29.) He determined at step three that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment. (Id. at 30.) He then found that Carley G. retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work but was limited to occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; occasional climbing of ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; understanding, remembering, and carrying out simple, routine tasks; only occasional interaction with the general public and occasional work-related, non-personal, non-social interaction with co-workers and supervisors; and jobs requiring only simple work-related decisions. (Id. at 31.) At step four, ALJ Messer determined that Plaintiff did not have any past relevant work. (Id. at 36.) Nevertheless, she was capable of performing the requirements of the representative occupations of housekeeping cleaner, assembler, and marker (step five). (Id. at 37.) Accordingly, the ALJ found that Carley G. had not been under a disability since July 9, 2018. (Id.)

B. The Parties' Arguments

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's finding that she can perform light work on a sustained basis lacks the support of substantial evidence and is the result of legal error. (Joint Mot. 4, ECF No. 17.) Specifically, she claims that she has required thirty-nine days of emergency room treatment or hospitalization since August 1, 2016, her alleged onset date, which she contends undermines the ALJ's determination that she can perform

5

work on a regular and continuous basis. (Id. at 5-9.) Carley G. asserts that at a minimum, she should be granted a closed period of disability from 2016 through 2019. (Id. at 10 n.2.) The Commissioner argues that the relevant period in SSI cases is from the application date through the date of the ALJ's decision; here, July 9, 2018, through April 23, 2020. (Id. at 14, 17.) Defendant maintains that while Plaintiff may have frequently received emergency treatment before the relevant period, she has provided only tangential evidence of emergency room visits or hospitalizations during the time period in question. (Id. at 12.) In response, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ was required to consider evidence preceding her application date. (Id. at 22.)

C. Relevant Period for Determination of SSI benefits

The purpose of SSI benefits is to assure a minimum level of income for aged, blind, or disabled individuals who are unable to maintain a standard of living at the federal minimum income level. 20 C.F.R. § 416.110 (2019). An SSI claimant must be found to be disabled during the period her application is pending and may not receive benefits for any month prior to the one in which she applied for SSI. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1382(c)(7) (West 2018); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.335 (2019) (“If you file an application after the month you first meet all the other requirements for eligibility, we cannot pay you for the month in which your application is filed or any months before that month.”); Hawthorne v. Astrue, 493 F.Supp.2d 838, 842 (S.D....