Richard B. v. Saul
| Decision Date | 31 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:18-cv-05168-MKD,4:18-cv-05168-MKD |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
| Parties | RICHARD B., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. |
Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 14, 17. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No.7. The Court, having reviewed the administrative record and the parties' briefing, is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. 14, and denies Defendant's Motion, ECF No. 17.
The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g); 1383(c)(3).
A district court's review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The scope of review under § 405(g) is limited; the Commissioner's decision will be disturbed "only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error." Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). "Substantial evidence" means "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. at 1159 (quotation and citation omitted). Stated differently, substantial evidence equates to "more than a mere scintilla[,] but less than a preponderance." Id. (quotation and citation omitted). In determining whether the standard has been satisfied, a reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole rather than searching for supporting evidence in isolation. Id.
In reviewing a denial of benefits, a district court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152,1156 (9th Cir. 2001). If the evidence in the record "is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, [the court] must uphold the ALJ's findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record." Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). Further, a district court "may not reverse an ALJ's decision on account of an error that is harmless." Id. An error is harmless "where it is inconsequential to the [ALJ's] ultimate nondisability determination." Id. at 1115 (quotation and citation omitted). The party appealing the ALJ's decision generally bears the burden of establishing that it was harmed. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409-10 (2009).
A claimant must satisfy two conditions to be considered "disabled" within the meaning of the Social Security Act. First, the claimant must be "unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). Second, the claimant's impairment must be "of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work[,] but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant satisfies the above criteria. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). At step one, the Commissioner considers the claimant's work activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity," the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b).
If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the analysis proceeds to step two. At this step, the Commissioner considers the severity of the claimant's impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant suffers from "any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [his or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities," the analysis proceeds to step three. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the claimant's impairment does not satisfy this severity threshold, however, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).
At step three, the Commissioner compares the claimant's impairment to severe impairments recognized by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude a person from engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment is as severe or moresevere than one of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled and award benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d).
If the severity of the claimant's impairment does not meet or exceed the severity of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must pause to assess the claimant's "residual functional capacity." Residual functional capacity (RFC), defined generally as the claimant's ability to perform physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite his or her limitations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1), is relevant to both the fourth and fifth steps of the analysis.
At step four, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant's RFC, the claimant is capable of performing work that he or she has performed in the past (past relevant work). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is capable of performing past relevant work, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the claimant is incapable of performing such work, the analysis proceeds to step five.
At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant's RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, the Commissioner must also consider vocational factors such as the claimant's age,education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant is capable of adjusting to other work, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1). If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work, analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is therefore entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1).
The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four above. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). If the analysis proceeds to step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish that 1) the claimant is capable of performing other work; and 2) such work "exists in significant numbers in the national economy." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(c)(2), 416.960(c)(2); Beltran v. Astrue, 700 F.3d 386, 389 (9th Cir. 2012).
On September 25, 2012, Plaintiff protectively filed applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits, alleging a disability onset date of December 28, 2011. Tr. 191-202. The applications were denied initially, Tr. 139-46, and on reconsideration, Tr. 148-52. Plaintiff appeared at a hearing before an administrative law judge on October 29, 2014. Tr. 36-85. On December 22, 2014, the ALJ denied Plaintiff's claims. Tr. 16-35. On appeal, this Court remanded the case to the Social SecurityAdministration and instructed it to supplement the record with any outstanding evidence, and take testimony from psychological, medical, and vocational experts, reassess whether Plaintiff met Listing 12.05C, reassess Plaintiff's symptom reports, reweigh the medical opinions in the file, and form a new RFC determination considering the new evidence in the record, reassess. Tr. 753-71.
On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff appeared before an ALJ for a second hearing. Tr. 660-719. On August 16, 2018, the ALJ denied Plaintiff's claims. Tr. 628-59. At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had engaged in substantial gainful activity from November 2015 to January 2017, but that there had been a continuous 12-month period during which Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity. Tr. 634. At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, intermittent explosive disorder, unspecified personality disorder, and polysubstance use disorder. Tr. 634. At step three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment. Tr. 637. The ALJ then concluded that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with the following limitations:
[Plaintiff] would be limited to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks requiring a reasoning level of 2 or less; he would need "hands-on" demonstration to learn tasks; he would need to work in a single location with no assembly-line pace or other fast-paced work; he should have no contact with the public ormore than occasional, superficial contact with co-workers or supervisors, except that he would require up to frequent supervision during the normal training period to help him learn new tasks; and he would need to work independently without collaborative tasks.
At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff was capable of performing his past relevant work as a hand packager. Tr. 650. Although the ALJ found Plaintiff capable of performing past relevant work, the ALJ continued to step five and determined that, considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, RFC, and testimony from a vocational expert, there were other jobs that existed in significant numbers in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial