Mori v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

• Decision Date: 24 May 2017
• Docket Number: No. CV-16-1743-PHX-ESW,CV-16-1743-PHX-ESW
• Parties: David Mori, Plaintiff, v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

David Mori, Plaintiff,
v.
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. CV-16-1743-PHX-ESW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

May 24, 2017

ORDER

Pending before the Court is David Mori's ("Plaintiff") appeal of the Social Security Administration's ("Social Security") denial of his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Court has jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff's appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 1383(c). 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. 13).

After reviewing the Administrative Record ("A.R.") and the parties' briefing (Docs. 17, 23, 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.

Page 2

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Disability Analysis: Five-Step Evaluation

The Social Security Act (the "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). The Act also provides for Supplemental Security Income to certain individuals who are aged 65 or older, blind, or disabled and have limited income. 42 U.S.C. § 1382. To be eligible for benefits based on an alleged disability, 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. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(A)(3)(A). The claimant must also show that the impairment is expected to cause death or last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Id.

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), 416.920(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), 416.920(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

Page 3

are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(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), 416.920(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), 416.920(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.

Page 4

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, 169 F.3d at 599 ("Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is 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, 53 F.3d at 1039.

The Court must also consider 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 1961, has worked as an auto mechanic. (A.R. 31, 47, 54). In August 2013, Plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (A.R. 160-70). Plaintiff's applications alleged that on June 10, 2013, Plaintiff became unable to work due to renal cancer and "bad legs/feet." (A.R. 54, 62). Social Security denied the applications on December 5, 2013. (A.R. 96-104). In May 2014, upon Plaintiff's request for reconsideration, Social Security affirmed the denial of benefits. (A.R. 126-29). Plaintiff sought further review by an ALJ, who conducted a hearing in November 2014. (A.R. 24-51).

Page 5

In her December 3, 2014 decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (A.R. 10-19). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Social Security Commissioner. (A.R. 1-3, 5-6). On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) requesting judicial review and reversal of the ALJ's decision.

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

The ALJ completed all five steps of the disability analysis before finding that Plaintiff is not disabled and entitled to disability benefits.

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

The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of June 10, 2013. (A.R. 12). Neither party disputes this determination.

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

The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the following three impairments: (i) renal cell carcinoma status post resection; (ii) hypertension; and (iii) obesity. (A.R. 12). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not including Plaintiff's alleged "urinary problems" in the list of severe impairments. (Doc. 17 at 11).

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

The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 of the Social Security regulations. (A.R. 13). This finding is undisputed.

4. Step Four: Capacity to Perform Past Relevant Work

The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), except that

[Plaintiff] can only occasionally stoop and climb ramps or stairs but never ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The claimant is unable to kneel or crawl but can frequently crouch. In

Page 6

addition, the claimant must avoid working around unprotected heights but he can frequently work around extreme temperatures.

(A.R. 13).

Based on the RFC, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff is unable to perform his past relevant work as an auto mechanic. (A.R. 17). While Plaintiff does not dispute the ALJ's determination that he is unable to perform his past relevant work, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff's testimony regarding his symptoms and limitations in assessing Plaintiff's RFC. (Doc. 17 at 11-15).

5. Step Five: Capacity to Perform Other Work

At the administrative hearing, a vocational expert ("VE") testified that based on Plaintiff's RFC, Plaintiff would be able to perform the requirements of representative occupations such as assembler, packager, and shirt folding machine operator. (A.R. 47-48). The ALJ found that the VE's testimony was consistent with the information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and that the jobs identified by the VE existed in significant numbers in the national...