Carlson v. Acting Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

• Decision Date: 14 July 2017
• Docket Number: No. CV-16-02430-PHX-ESW,CV-16-02430-PHX-ESW
• Parties: Craig Allen Carlson, Plaintiff, v. Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

Craig Allen Carlson, Plaintiff, v. Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

No. CV-16-02430-PHX-ESW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

July 14, 2017

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Craig Allen Carlson's ("Plaintiff") appeal of the Social Security Administration's ("Social Security") denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. The Court has jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff's appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court has the power to enter, based upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing. Both parties have consented to the exercise of U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 17).

After reviewing the Administrative Record ("A.R.") and the parties' briefing (Docs. 20, 24), the Court finds that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free of harmful legal error. The decision is therefore affirmed.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Disability Analysis: Five-Step Evaluation

The Social Security Act provides for disability insurance benefits to those who have contributed to the Social Security program and who suffer from a physical or mental disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1). To be eligible for benefits, the claimant must show that he or she suffers from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that prohibits him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. The claimant must also show that the impairment is expected to cause death or last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

To decide if a claimant is entitled to Social Security benefits, an ALJ conducts an analysis consisting of five questions, which are considered in sequential steps. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant has the burden of proof regarding the first four steps:¹

Step One: Is the claimant engaged in "substantial gainful activity"? If so, the analysis ends and disability benefits are denied. Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to Step Two.

Step Two: Does the claimant have a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments? A severe impairment is one which significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, disability benefits are denied at this step. Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to Step Three.

Step Three: Is the impairment equivalent to one of a number of listed impairments that the Commissioner acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity? 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled. If the impairment is not one that is presumed to be disabling, the ALJ proceeds to the fourth step of the analysis.

Step Four: Does the impairment prevent the claimant from performing work which the claimant performed in the past? If not, the claimant is "not disabled" and disability benefits are denied without continuing the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to the last step.

If the analysis proceeds to the final question, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner:²

Step Five: Can the claimant perform other work in the national economy in light of his or her age, education, and work experience? The claimant is entitled to disability benefits only if he or she is unable to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). Social Security is responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can do, given the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. Id.

B. Standard of Review Applicable to ALJ's Determination

The Court must affirm an ALJ's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and is based on correct legal standards. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012); Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 174 (9th Cir. 1990). Although "substantial evidence" is less than a preponderance, it is more than a "mere scintilla." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id.

In determining whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, the Court considers the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from the ALJ's conclusions. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998); Tylitzki v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 1411, 1413 (9th Cir. 1993). If there is sufficient evidence to support the ALJ's determination, the Court cannot substitute its own determination. See Morgan v. Comm'r of the Social Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999) ("Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, itis the ALJ's conclusion that must be upheld."); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). This is because the ALJ, not the Court, is responsible for resolving conflicts, ambiguity, and determining credibility. Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 750; see also Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995).

The Court also considers the harmless error doctrine when reviewing an ALJ's decision. This doctrine provides that an ALJ's decision need not be remanded or reversed if it is clear from the record that the error is "inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination." Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115 (an error is harmless so long as there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision and the error "does not negate the validity of the ALJ's ultimate conclusion") (citations omitted).

II. PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff, who was born in 1966, has been employed as a storage facility rental clerk, motorcycle salesman, warehouse manager, piano mover, and telemarketer. (A.R. 94, 95, 100). In 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits. (A.R. 216-17). Plaintiff's application alleged that on October 1, 2007, he became unable to work due to the following conditions: sciatica, gastric sleeve surgery, Type II diabetes with neuropathy, "pain in legs," "too much tissue pressing on spine/hereditary," high blood pressure, depression, tinnitus, "limited mobility," deafness in the left ear, and "poor hearing in right ear." (A.R. 100-01). Social Security denied the applications in February 2013. (A.R. 143-45). In November 2013, upon Plaintiff's request for reconsideration, Social Security affirmed the denial of benefits. (A.R. 146-49). Plaintiff sought further review by an ALJ, who conducted a hearing in September 2014. (A.R. 44-98, 150-51). On the date of the hearing, Plaintiff amended his alleged disability onset date to October 29, 2010. (A.R. 230).

In his February 25, 2015 decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has not been under a disability from October 29, 2010 through December 31, 2012, the date last insured. (A.R. 25-37). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Social Security Commissioner. (A.R. 4-9). On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) requesting judicial review and reversal of the ALJ's decision.

B. The ALJ's Application of the Five-Step Disability Analysis

1. Step One: Engagement in "Substantial Gainful Activity"

The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity from October 29, 2010, the amended alleged disability onset date, through the date last insured of December 31, 2012. (A.R. 27). Neither party disputes this determination.

2. Step Two: Presence of Medically Severe Impairment/Combination of Impairments

The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: (i) degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and cervical spine; (ii) obstructive sleep apnea; (iii) degenerative joint disease; (iv) bilateral hand/wrist tenosynovitis; (v) trigger finger; (vi) Type II diabetes mellitus; (vii) chronic pain syndrome; and (ix) obesity. (A.R. 27). This determination is unchallenged.

3. Step Three: Presence of Listed Impairment(s)

The ALJ found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 of the Social Security regulations. (A.R. 29-30). Neither party disputes the ALJ's determination at this step.

4. Step Four: Capacity to Perform Past Relevant Work

The ALJ found that Plaintiff has retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), except that Plaintiff

could frequently push and pull with the upper and lower extremities; he could occasionally climb ramps, stairs, and ladders; he could occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, and crouch; he was precluded from climbing ropes or scaffolds;he was precluded from crawling; he could frequently reach, handle, finger, and feel; he had to avoid moderate exposure to loud noise intensity environments; and he had to avoid hazardous environments including unprotected heights and moving machinery.

(A.R. 30).

Based on the testimony of a vocational expert ("VE") and Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ determined at Step Four that Plaintiff can perform his past relevant work as a storage facility rental clerk, motorcycle salesman, warehouse manager, and telemarketer. (A.R. 36).

Plaintiff challenges the ALJ's RFC and Step Four determinations. Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erroneously identified the motorcycle salesperson and telemarketer...