Schultz v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 19 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. EDCV 12-0989-JPR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | EVA JANE SCHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner's final decision denying her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income benefits ("SSI"). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court has taken undersubmission without oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed and this action is dismissed.
Plaintiff was born on November 29, 1953. (Administrative Record ("AR") 119, 132.) She has a college education. (AR 43, 119.) She worked as an instructional aide and remained on call throughout the administrative proceedings as a substitute teacher. (AR 42, 151, 156.)
On October 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB, which the Social Security Administration treated as including an application for SSI.2 (AR 132, 62.) Plaintiff alleged she had been unable to work since January 1, 2009, because of scoliosis; problems with her back, tailbone, shoulders, knees, and rotator cuffs; cellulitis;3 asthma; allergies; gastroesophageal refluxdisease ("GERD");4 anemia; rosacea;5 and possible attention deficit disorder ("ADD") and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"). (AR 142, 151, 155.) After Plaintiff's applications were denied, she requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. (AR 62-66, 71-74, 83.) A hearing was held on January 31, 2011, at which Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, testified, as did a vocational expert. (AR 36-59.) In a written decision issued on February 15, 2011, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. (AR 25-32.) On April 17, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (AR 1-3.) She was represented by counsel during the Appeals Council proceedings. (See AR 5-7, 213-16.) This action followed.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits. The ALJ's findings and decision should be upheld if they are free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence means such evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401; Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). It is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1035 (citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, the reviewing court "must review the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's conclusion." Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1996). "If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing," the reviewing court "may not substitute its judgment" for that of the Commissioner. Id. at 720-21.
People are "disabled" for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits if they are unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity owing to a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or which has lasted, or is expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992).
The ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (as amended Apr. 9, 1996). In the first step, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant iscurrently engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim must be denied. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the second step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has a "severe" impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting her ability to do basic work activities; if not, a finding of not disabled is made and the claim must be denied. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant has a "severe" impairment or combination of impairments, the third step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment in the Listing of Impairments ("Listing") set forth at 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; if so, disability is conclusively presumed and benefits are awarded. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments does not meet or equal an impairment in the Listing, the fourth step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant has sufficient residual functional capacity ("RFC")6 to perform her past work; if so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim must be denied. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). The claimant has the burden of proving that she is unable to perform past relevant work. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. If the claimant meets that burden, a prima facie case of disability is established. Id. If that happens or if theclaimant has no past relevant work, the Commissioner then bears the burden of establishing that the claimant is not disabled because she can perform other substantial gainful work available in the national economy. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). That determination comprises the fifth and final step in the sequential analysis. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Lester, 81 F.3d at 828 n.5; Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257.
At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2009. (AR 27.) At step two, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had medically determinable impairments of asthma, obesity, and mild degenerative disc disease but that these impairments were not severe. (Id.) Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. (AR 32.)
Between May 23, 2003, and April 18, 2006, Plaintiff was seen at West Dermatology in Redlands, primarily for treatment of rosacea and verruca.8 (See, e.g., AR 129, 220, 222, 223, 224.)Plaintiff's rosacea appeared to improve with application of Noritate cream9 and ingestion of tetracycline.10 (See AR 223, 224, 226.) Her warts were removed using liquid nitrogen. (See AR 219, 220, 222, 223.)
On August 4, 2006, Plaintiff was seen in the emergency department of Verde Valley Medical Center in Cottonwood, Arizona, for complaints of discomfort in her left lower leg. (AR 238.) Plaintiff was diagnosed with cellulitis, given a prescription for Keflex,11 and referred for a follow-up visit in California within three to five days.12 (AR 239.)
On January 30, 2008, Plaintiff was seen by nurse practitioner Emmanuel Angeles at the Beaver Medical Group in Yucaipa for complaints of plugged ears and nasal infection. (AR 244.) The consultation form reflects diagnoses of otalgia,13asthma, and rhinitis.14 (Id.) The recommendations and prescriptions are illegible. (Id.)
On April 8, 2008, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Glenn Kerr at Beaver Medical Group with complaints of a cough for more than two weeks, a runny nose, and "troublesome" ears. (AR 243.) Her asthma, which had "been well controlled," was worse. (Id.) Dr. Kerr assessed bilateral otitis media,15 bronchitis, and asthma and prescribed Zithromax16 and Bactroban17 and refilled Plaintiff's Astelin prescription.18 (Id.)
On April 16, 2008, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Teri Boon at Beaver Medical Group for complaints of cough and congestion for two weeks and fever. (AR 242.) A test for streptococcus wasnegative. (AR 245.) She was assessed as having pharyngitis19 and bronchitis; the prescription given is illegible. (Id.)
On May 7, 2008, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Paul Pham at the Beaver Medical Group for complaints of redness in her lower extremities over a couple of days. (AR 241.) Dr. Pham noted that one leg showed slight erythema, the other showed edema and erythema extending almost to her knee, and she had notable varicose veins. (Id.) He assessed "[c]ellulitis, lower extremity, possible phlebitis," prescribed Keflex, and advised Plaintiff to keep her leg elevated and be seen again within the week. (Id.)
On July 25, 2008, Plaintiff was seen at West Dermatology for complaint of a rash on her lower extremities. (AR 218.) The notes reflect a diagnosis of "early cellulitis." (Id.) Plaintiff was prescribed Duricef20 and triamcinolone ointment21 and instructed to elevate her legs, "[a]void prolonged car travel," and go to the emergency room if the condition worsened. (Id.)
On June 10, 2009, Plaintiff was seen by nurse practitionerIvana Bluhm at Redlands Community Hospital Family Clinic in Redlands to obtain a prescription for Flonase.22 (AR 250.) Plaintiff's Adult Health History reported that she had suffered rosacea, ear-wax buildup, asthma, anemia, a pinched nerve in her hip, and GERD and that her current medications were Flonase, Prilosec,23 iron tablets, and albuterol24 "as needed." (AR 251.) Plaintiff reported to Bluhm that she could no longer afford a corticosteroid inhaler25 but that her asthma was "controlled [with] Flonase," which could be obtained at lower cost. (Id.) Bluhm assessed Pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial