Los v. Comm'r
| Decision Date | 21 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:17-CV-00778-HZ,3:17-CV-00778-HZ |
| Parties | CLAYTON L., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER, Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Merrill Schneider
SCHNEIDER KERR & ROBICHAUX
P.O. Box 14490
Portland, OR 97293
Attorney for Plaintiff
Billy J. Williams
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
District of Oregon
Renata Gowie
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
Sarah L. Martin
SPECIAL ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A
Seattle, WA 98104-7075
Attorneys for Defendant
Plaintiff Clayton L. brings this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision to deny disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (incorporated by 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3)). The Court reverses the Commissioner's decision and remands for immediate payment of benefits.
Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on September 6, 2013, alleging disability as of June 1, 2009. Tr. 19, 155.2 His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Tr. 190-94, 197-202. On November 19, 2015, Plaintiff appeared, with counsel, for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Tr. 38. On January 21, 2016, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 31. The Appeals Council denied review. Tr. 1.
Plaintiff alleges disability based on ADD, a kidney disorder, chronic headaches, PTSD, depression, and a pulmonary embolism. Tr. 280. He was 39 at the time of the administrative hearing. Tr. 39. Defendant has a high school degree and some college with past relevant work experience as a fast food worker. Tr. 28, 281.
A claimant is disabled if unable to "engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment 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). Disability claims are evaluated according to a five-step procedure. See, e.g., Valentine v. Comm'r, 574 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009). The claimant bears the ultimate burden of proving disability. Id.
In the first step, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." If so, the claimant is not disabled. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). In step two, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a "medically severe impairment or combination of impairments." Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 at 140-41; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If not, the claimant is not disabled.
In step three, the Commissioner determines whether the impairment meets or equals "one of a number of listed impairments that the [Commissioner] acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity." Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If so, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled; if not, the Commissioner proceeds to step four. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141.
In step four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant, despite any impairment(s), has the residual functional capacity to perform "past relevant work." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant can, the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. In step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can perform other work. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at141-42; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) & (f), 416.920(e) & (f). If the Commissioner meets his burden and proves that the claimant is able to perform other work which exists in the national economy, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566, 416.966.
At step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his amended alleged onset date of June 28, 2013, through his date last insured. Tr. 22. At step two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the severe impairments of organic mental disorder, affective disorder, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, personality disorder, chronic renal failure, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Tr. 22. At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal, singly or in combination, a listed impairment. Tr. 22.
At step four, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) and 416.967(c) with the following limitations:
frequently climb ramps and stairs and occasionally climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds. He should avoid concentrated exposure to hazards such as unprotected heights and dangerous machinery. He is capable of simple routine tasks with an SVP (Specific Vocational Preparation) of 1 or 2. He can have superficial incidental contact with the general public and occasional contact with coworkers.
Tr. 24. Because of these limitations the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work as a fast food worker. Tr. 28. But at step five the ALJ found that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform, such as "industrial cleaner," "lab equipment cleaner," and "laundry worker." Tr. 29. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled. Tr. 31.
///
A court may set aside the Commissioner's denial of benefits only when the Commissioner's findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). "Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The court considers the record as a whole, including both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner's decision. Id.; Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). "Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ's decision must be affirmed." Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007) () (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by: (1) failing to discuss Listing 12.05 for intellectual disability at step three and (2) rejecting the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Robert Schneider, Ph.D. Pl. Br. 4, ECF 18. The Commissioner concedes that in both respects the ALJ erred. Def. Br. 3, ECF 19. However, the parties disagree on whether the Court should remand the case for an award of benefits or for further proceedings. Plaintiff argues that the Court should remand for immediate payment of benefits because all the elements of Listing 12.05C have been met in this case and, if credited as true, Dr. Schneider's opinion warrants a finding that Plaintiff is disabled. Pl. Br. 7, 11. The Commissioner, by contrast, contends that there are outstanding factual issues in the record that foreclose finding Plaintiff disabled. Def. Br. 7, 9. Because theCourt finds that Plaintiff meets the requirements of Listing 12.05C and is therefore disabled, it does not reach the remainder of Plaintiff's arguments.
At step three of the sequential analysis, if a claimant meets or medically equals a listed impairment, then he is presumed disabled regardless of his age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d). A claimant bears the burden of producing medical evidence to establish all of the requisite medical findings that his impairments meet or equal any particular listing. An impairment, or combination of impairments, is medically equivalent to a listing "if it is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment," considering, "all evidence in [the] case record about [the] impairment(s) and its effects on [the claimant] that is relevant[.]" 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(a), (c). Finally, "the claimant's illnesses 'must be considered in combination and must not be fragmentized in evaluating their effects.'" Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 829 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Beecher v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 693, 694-95 (9th Cir.1985)). "Listed impairments are purposefully set at a high level of severity because 'the listings were designed to operate as a presumption of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary.'" Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990)). "Listed impairments set such strict standards because they automatically end the five-step inquiry, before residual functional capacity is even considered." Id.
Listing 12.05C has three requirements.3 First, the introductory paragraph requires "significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period; i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22." 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App'x 1 § 12.05(c).Second, as described in paragraph C, a claimant must show that he has a "valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70." Id. Third, the claimant must show that he has "a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function." Id.
The Commissioner admits that Plaintiff meets the second and third requirements of the listing: "[Plaintiff] had an IQ score between 60 and 70 and another impairment causing significant work-related limitations (based...
To continue reading
Request your trial