Manning v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

• Decision Date: 02 November 2018
• Docket Number: No. 2:16-CV-1458-DMC,2:16-CV-1458-DMC
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: BYRON MANNING, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

BYRON MANNING, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

No. 2:16-CV-1458-DMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

November 2, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") terminating his previously granted Social Security Disability Insurance under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to the written consent of all parties (Docs. 10 and 11), this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 18 and 21). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgement is denied and the Commissioner's cross motion for summary judgment is granted.

///

///

///

I. BACKGROUND

On November 19, 2004, the Commissioner found Plaintiff disabled as of May 1, 2002, and awarded him disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. CAR 13, 15-16.¹ On January 17, 2012, upon continuing disability review (CDR), the Commissioner determined Plaintiff was no longer disabled as of January 1, 2012. CAR 13, 22. The determination was upheld upon reconsideration after a disability hearing by a State Agency Disability Hearing Officer. CAR 13. Plaintiff timely filed a written request for a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) L. Kalei Fong. Id. On June 24, 2014, Plaintiff appeared and testified at a hearing in Sacramento, California. Id. On September 9, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision upholding the Commissioner's finding and on May 3, 2016, the Appeals Council denied reconsideration. CAR 13, 6-8. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff timely filed a complaint with this court, challenging the decision of the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 405. After the Appeals Council declined review on May 3, 2016, this appeal followed.

II. THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS

In her September 9, 2014, decision, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff does not continue to be disabled based on the following relevant findings:

1. At the time of the comparison point decision (CPD), dated November 19, 2004, the claimant had the following medically determinable impairment: schizoaffective disorder;

2. Through January 1, 2012, the date claimant's disability ended, the claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity;

3. Since January 1, 2012, The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals an impairment listed in the regulations;

4. Medical improvement occurred as of January 1, 2012;

5. The medical improvement is related to the ability to work because as of January 1, 2012, the claimant no longer had an impairment or combination of impartments that med or medically equaled the same listing(s) that was met at the time of the CPD;6. The claimant continues to have the following severe impairment(s): schizoaffective disorder;

7. The claimant has the following residual functional capacity: full range of work at all exertional levels; the claimant is limited to simple one- and two-step tasks and must work in a low-stress environment;

8. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, residual functional capacity, and the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.

See CAR 14-21.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The court reviews the Commissioner's final decision to determine whether it is: (1) based on proper legal standards; and (2) supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). "Substantial evidence" is more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. See Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521 (9th Cir. 1996). It is ". . . such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971). The record as a whole, including both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner's conclusion, must be considered and weighed. See Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1986); Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). The court may not affirm the Commissioner's decision simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. See Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). If substantial evidence supports the administrative findings, or if there is conflicting evidence supporting a particular finding, the finding of the Commissioner is conclusive. See Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which supports the Commissioner's decision, the decision must be affirmed, see Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002), and may be set aside only if an improper legal standard was applied in weighing the evidence, see Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1988).

Social security claimants have the initial burden of proving disability. Bowen v. Yuckert,482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5 (1987). However, "once a claimant has been found to bedisabled... a presumption of continuing disability arises in [their] favor." Bellamy v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 755 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir.1985) (citing Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 500 (9th Cir.1983)). Under the Act, however, cases must be reviewed at least once every three years "to determine whether a period of disability has ended." Flaten v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1460 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 415 (1988); 42 U.S.C. § 421(i)(1) (requiring review for continuing eligibility at least once every three years); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594 (regulation governing termination of benefits). To determine whether a claimant continues to be disabled for purposes of receiving social security benefits, the Commissioner engages in an eight-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.994. The sequential evaluation proceeds as follows:

(1) Are you engaging in substantial gainful activity? If you are (and any applicable trial work period has been completed), we will find disability to have ended (see paragraph (d)(5) of this section).

(2) If you are not, do you have an impairment or combination of impairments which meets or equals the severity of an impairment listed in appendix 1 of this subpart? If you do, your disability will be found to continue.

(3) If you do not, has there been medical improvement as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section? If there has been medical improvement as shown by a decrease in medical severity, see step (4) . If there has been no decrease in medical severity, there has been no medical improvement. (See step (5).)

(4) If there has been medical improvement, we must determine whether it is related to your ability to do work in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section; i.e., whether or not there has been an increase in the residual functional capacity based on the impairment(s) that was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical determination. If medical improvement is not related to your ability to do work, see step (5). If medical improvement is related to your ability to do work, see step (6).

(5) If we found at step (3) that there has been no medical improvement or if we found at step (4) that the medical improvement is not related to your ability to work, we consider whether any of the exceptions in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section apply. If none of them apply, your disability will be found to continue. If one of the first group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, see step (6). If an exception from the second group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, your disability will be found to have ended. The second group of exceptions to medical improvement may be considered at any point in this process.

(6) If medical improvement is shown to be related to your ability to do work or if one of the first group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, we will determine whether all your current impairments in combination are severe (see § 404.1521). This determination will consider all your current impairments and the impact of the combination of those impairments on your ability to function. If the residual functional capacity assessment in step (4) above shows significant limitation of your ability to do basic work activities, see step (7). When the evidence shows that all your current impairments in combination do not significantly limit your physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities, these impairments will not be considered severe in nature. If so, you will no longer be considered to be disabled.

(7) If your impairment(s) is severe, we will assess your current ability to do substantial gainful activity in accordance with § 404.1560. That is, we will assess your residual functional capacity based on all your current impairments and consider whether you can still do work you have done in the past. If you can do such work, disability will be found to have ended.

(8) If you are not able to do work you have done in the past, we will consider whether you can do other work given the residual functional capacity assessment made under paragraph (f)(7) of this section and your age, education, and past work experience (see paragraph (f)(9) of this section for an exception to this rule). If you can, we will find that your disability has ended. If you cannot, we will find that your disability continues.

20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(f).²

In this evaluation process, the Commissioner has the "burden of producing evidence sufficient to rebut [the] presumption of continuing disability." Bellamy, 755 F.2d at 1381. Indeed, the burden of production remains with the Commissioner throughout the sequential evaluation process.³

However, a reviewing court will...