Schilling v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

• Decision Date: 02 December 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-01268-SAB
• Parties: PATRICIA JANE SCHILLING, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

PATRICIA JANE SCHILLING, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-01268-SAB

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 2, 2022

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL

(ECF Nos. 14, 16)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Patricia Jane Schilling^[1] (“Plaintiff”') seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her concurrently submitted applications for Social Security benefits pursuant to Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' briefs, which were submitted without oral argument, to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.^[2] For the reasons set

1

forth below, Plaintiff's appeal shall be denied.

II.

BACKGROUND^[3]

As relevant to the longitudinal record and considerations under the rebuttable presumption of continuing nondisability, the Court notes Plaintiff filed two prior separate claims which were denied. Plaintiff originally filed a Title II claim on January 3, 2012, alleging disability beginning September 18, 2010. (See Admin. Rec. (“AR”) 120, ECF No. 10-1.) That claim was initially denied on July 8, 2012, and upon reconsideration on January 24, 2013. (Id.) Plaintiff appeared for a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Nancy Lisewski on August 20, 2013. (AR 120-37.) The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: migraines, obesity, hypertension, mild cervical spinal stenosis, right ulnar neuropathy, joint pain, borderline intellectual functioning, depressive disorder not otherwise specified, generalized anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). (AR 123.) The ALJ found Plaintiff's impairments resulted in only moderate functional limitations-largely because Plaintiff's activities included caring for her three children (ages six, nine, and eleven) as a “stay-at-home mom,” preparing meals, vacuuming, folding laundry, washing dishes, sweeping, driving, shopping, managing finances, “social networking “all day everyday [sic],” attending and singing at church, cheerleading coaching, making jewelry for herself and her kids, using the computer, reading, and watching television, and the medical record indicated Plaintiff had no episodes of decomposition and did not require any inpatient mental health treatment during the alleged period of disability. (AR 123-25.) However, the ALJ reached an RFC determination that permitted only simple, unskilled, repetitive, one-to-two step tasks and instructions, sedentary work with multiple limitations related to lifting/carrying, standing/walking, postural, gripping, and overhead reaching, as well as situational/environmental, and social limitations. (AR 126.) The ALJ denied this claim on September 27, 2013. (AR 117-34.)

Next, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)

2

under Title XVI on February 27, 2014, alleging disability beginning September 18, 2010. (See AR 138.) This claim was denied initially on October 14, 2014, and upon reconsideration on May 14, 2015. (Id.) A videoconference hearing was held before ALJ Lisewski on March 13, 2017. (Id.) This time, Plaintiff was assessed with the severe impairments of chronic pain, diabetes, PTSD, depression, degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), sleep apnea, and obesity, and the ALJ determined Plaintiff's impairments resulted in mild to moderate limitations in the criteria B functional areas. (AR 14041.) Plaintiff's RFC determination also differed, in that the ALJ concluded Plaintiff was able to perform simple and routine light work, with frequent postural and balancing limitations, occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors and no contact with the public. (AR 142.) The ALJ denied this claim on May 3, 2017 (AR 135-54); the Appeal Council denied review on May 23, 2018 (AR 155-60). On July 11, 2018, Plaintiff appealed the denial of her SSI claim to the Eastern District Court of California. (See AR 164-80); Massey v. Saul, No. 1:18-cv-00937-JLT, 2019 WL 4464032 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019). In that appeal, Plaintiff challenged the ALJ's decision based on the ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinions (specifically the ALJ's rejection of the opinions of Dr. Rinehart and Ms. Powell). Massey, 2019 WL 4464032, at *7. The district court found the ALJ sufficiently identified specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the limitations identified by Dr. Rinehard and Ms. Powell-namely, the opinions were inconsistent with the medical record and other physician's opinions-and affirmed the decision of the Commissioner. Id. at *9-11. Judgment was entered against Plaintiff on September 18, 2019. Id. at *11.

Meanwhile, on January 22, 2019, Plaintiff concurrently filed the instant applications for Social Security benefits under Title II and SSI under Title XVI, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2019. (See AR 15.) Plaintiff's claims were initially denied on May 29, 2019, and denied upon reconsideration on September 25, 2019. (AR 183-214, 234-69.) On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff, represented by counsel Steven Rosales,^[4] appeared via telephonic conference, for

3

an administrative hearing before ALJ Matthew C. Kawalek (hereinafter, the “ALJ”). (AR 88116.) Vocational expert (“VE”) Bruce Magnuson also testified at the hearing. On December 9, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. (AR 12-34.) On June 24, 2021, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (AR 1-6.)

Plaintiff initiated the instant action in federal court on August 20, 2021, and seeks judicial review of the denial of her applications for benefits. (ECF No. 1.) The Commissioner lodged the administrative record on March 7, 2022. (ECF No. 10.) On May 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opening brief. (ECF No. 14.) On July 14, 2022, Defendant filed a brief in opposition. (ECF No. 16.) No reply brief was filed and the matter was deemed submitted.

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. The Disability Standard

To qualify for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, a claimant must show she is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment^[5] 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential evaluation process to be used in determining if a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520;^[6] Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2004). The five steps in the sequential evaluation in assessing whether the claimant is disabled are:

Step one: Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step two

4

Step two: Is the claimant's alleged impairment sufficiently severe to limit his or her ability to work? If so, proceed to step three. If not, the claimant is not disabled.

Step three: Does the claimant's impairment, or combination of impairments, meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1? If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, proceed to step four.

Step four: Does the claimant possess the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform his or her past relevant work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five.

Step five: Does the claimant's RFC, when considered with the claimant's age, education, and work experience, allow him or her to adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled.

Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006). The burden of proof is on the claimant at steps one through four. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1148 (9th Cir. 2020). A claimant establishes a prima facie case of qualifying disability once she has carried the burden of proof from step one through step four.

Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant's RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e); Nowden v. Berryhill, No. EDCV 17-00584-JEM, 2018 WL 1155971, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018). The RFC is “the most [one] can still do despite [his] limitations” and represents an assessment “based on all the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The RFC must consider all of the claimant's impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945(a)(2); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, available at 1996 WL 374184 (Jul. 2, 1996).^[7] A determination of RFC is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC). “[I]t is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimant's physician, to determine residual functional capacity.” Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001).

5

At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner, who must then show that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given her RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(g); Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2006). To do this, the ALJ can use either the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“grids”), or call a VE. See 20 C.F.R. § 404 Subpt. P, App. 2; Lounsburry, 468 F.3d at 1114; Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001). “Throughout the five-step evaluation, the ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical...