Groom v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 28 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15–cv–02103–SI |
| Citation | 222 F.Supp.3d 915 |
| Parties | John Michael GROOM, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Tim Wilborn, P.O. Box 370578, Las Vegas, NV 89137. Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney, and Janice E. Hebert, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office , District of Oregon, 1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 600, Portland, OR 97204; John C. Lamont, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration , 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A, Seattle, WA 98104. Of Attorneys for Defendant.
John Groom ("Plaintiff") applied for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). The final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") held that Plaintiff's disability began August 1, 2014, which was after Plaintiff's date last insured. Thus, the Commissioner denied Plaintiff's application for DIB and granted his application for SSI beginning on August 1, 2014. Plaintiff seeks review of this final decision by the Commissioner. Plaintiff argues he was disabled before his date last insured, and that he is thus entitled to DIB and SSI. For the following reasons, the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded for an award of benefits.
The district court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based on the proper legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ; see also Hammock v. Bowen , 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). "Substantial evidence" means "more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance." Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995) ). It means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. (quoting Andrews , 53 F.3d at 1039 ).
Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's conclusion must be upheld.
Burch v. Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). Variable interpretations of the evidence are insignificant if the Commissioner's interpretation is a rational reading of the record, and this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 359 F.3d 1190, 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004). "[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence." Orn v. Astrue , 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin. , 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)). A reviewing court, however, may not affirm the Commissioner on a ground upon which the Commissioner did not rely. Id. ; see also Bray , 554 F.3d at 1226.
Plaintiff based his disability allegations on a combination of impairments, including asthma
, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), complex sleep apnea, a history of hydrocephalus1 with shunt placement, an arachnoid cyst of the cerebellum, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder with dermatillomania,2 a neurocognitive disorder, and migraines AR 40, 45, 254. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a hydrocephaly at the age of one and had a shunt placed in his brain at the age of two. AR 346. Plaintiff had the shunt replaced in 1999. AR 300.
Plaintiff filed an application for both DIB and SSI on September 3, 2012, alleging disability as of March 12, 2012. AR 39. Plaintiff was 42 years old at the alleged disability onset date. AR 476. In February 2015, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision, finding Plaintiff disabled beginning on August 1, 2014. The ALJ held, however, that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving disability before the date last insured, March 31, 2014. AR 12–13. Plaintiff appealed the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled before August 1, 2014. The Appeal's Counsel denied Plaintiff's request for review on September 10, 2015, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. AR 1. Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of that decision.
A claimant is disabled if he or she is unable to "engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
which ... has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). "Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential process for determining whether an applicant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act." Keyser v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin. , 648 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2011) ; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (DIB), 416.920 (SSI) ; Bowen v. Yuckert , 482 U.S. 137, 140, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987). Each step is potentially dispositive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The five-step sequential process asks the following series of questions:
See also Bustamante v. Massanari , 262 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2001).
The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four. Id. at 953 ; see also Tackett v. Apfel , 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) ; Yuckert , 482 U.S. at 140–41, 107 S.Ct. 2287. The Commissioner bears the burden of proof at step five. Tackett , 180 F.3d at 1100. At step five, the Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, "taking into consideration the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience." Id. ; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566, 416.966 (). If the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If, however, the Commissioner proves that the claimant is able to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled. Bustamante , 262 F.3d at 953–54 ; Tackett , 180 F.3d at 1099.
The ALJ applied the sequential process in his decision issued on February 25, 2015. AR 12–30. At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. AR 14. At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: "asthma
, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ), obstructive and central sleep apnea, history of hydrocephalus, arachnoid cyst, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder due to dermatillomania, and neurocognitive disorder." Id. The ALJ found that there was insufficient evidence to find that Plaintiff's alleged migraine headaches were a medically determinable impairment. AR 15. At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled the requirements of a listed impairment. AR 15–18.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jake R. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.
...a rare condition "in which the primary characteristic is excessive accumulation of fluid in the brain." Groom v. Colvin , 222 F. Supp. 3d 915, 918 n.1 (D. Or. 2016). To prevent the buildup of cerebrospinal fluid in his brain, Plaintiff has had a shunt surgically installed in his skull since......