Walker v. Berryhill, Case No. 17-cv-04365-DMR
| Decision Date | 11 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 17-cv-04365-DMR |
| Parties | TERESA WALKER, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Plaintiff Teresa Walker moves for summary judgment to reverse the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's (the "Commissioner's") final administrative decision, which found that she was not disabled and therefore denied her application for benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. The Commissioner cross-moves to affirm. For the reasons stated below, the court grants in parts and denies in part Walker's motion and the Commissioner's cross-motion, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Walker is currently 55 years old. She lives in subsidized housing in the City of Berkeley and was previously homeless and living on the streets for approximately 7 years. She has a history of depression and auditory hallucinations, along with a history of alcohol and cocaine use.
On December 28, 2009, Walker filed an application for Supplemental Social Security income ("SSI") alleging disability starting on January 1, 2006 due to various physical and mental conditions including depressive disorder, asthma, low back pain, and a right hand finger injury. Administrative Record ("AR") 117. On October 24, 2011, ALJ Mary P. Parnow found that Walker had severe impairments including, but not limited to, polysubstance dependence, but determined that she was not disabled. AR 114-29. In so finding, ALJ Parnow concluded that Walker would not be disabled if she stopped using substances (alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, marijuana, and prescription narcotics), and that her substance use was material to the disability determination. AR 129. Since Walker did not appeal the October 2011 decision, it is a final determination regarding her disability through the date of that decision.
On August 29, 2012, Walker filed another application for SSI income alleging disability due to asthma, fibromyalgia, back pain, depression, and anxiety starting on June 29, 2012. AR 335-57. Her application was initially denied on January 23, 2013 and again on reconsideration on August 16, 2013. AR 135-47 (Denial), 148-68 (Reconsideration). On September 11, 2013, she filed a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). AR 182-84. ALJ Richard P. Laverdure held hearings on June 8, 2015 and September 16, 2015 during which Walker appeared and testified, along with vocational expert (VE) Joel Greenberg and medical expert (ME) Ann Monis. AR 75-85 (June hearing); 36-74 (September hearing).
On November 24, 2015, ALJ Laverdure issued a decision finding that Walker was not disabled. AR 13-30. Walker appealed Laverdure's decision to the Appeals Council. AR 1.
On June 4, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Walker's request for review. AR 1-6. The ALJ's decision therefore became the Commissioner's final decision. Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2011). Walker then filed suit in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Because Walker did not appeal the 2011 ALJ decision, the November 2015 decision is the only ALJ decision at issue in this appeal.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court has the authority to review a decision by the Commissioner denying a claimant disability benefits. "This court may set aside the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits when the ALJ's findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole." Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Substantial evidence is evidence within the record that could lead a reasonable mind to accept a conclusion regarding disability status. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). It is more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. See Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 522 (9th Cir.1996) (internal citation omitted).When performing this analysis, the court must "consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence." Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
If the evidence reasonably could support two conclusions, the court "may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner" and must affirm the decision. Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). "Finally, the court will not reverse an ALJ's decision for harmless error, which exists when it is clear from the record that the ALJ's error was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination." Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must demonstrate a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that prevents her from engaging in substantial gainful activity1 and that is expected to result in death or to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 721 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). The impairment must render the claimant incapable of performing the work she previously performed and incapable of performing any other substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)).
To decide if a claimant is entitled to benefits, an ALJ conducts a five-step inquiry. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The steps are as follows:
1. At the first step, the ALJ considers the claimant's work activity, if any. If the claimant is doing substantial gainful activity, the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled.
2. At the second step, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the claimant's impairment(s). If the claimant does not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in [20 C.F.R.] § 416.909, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled.
3. At the third step, the ALJ also considers the medical severity of the claimant's impairment(s). If the claimant has an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of the listings in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 [the "Listings"] and meets the duration requirement, the ALJ will find that the claimant is disabled.
4. At the fourth step, the ALJ considers an assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") and the claimant's past relevant work. If the claimant can still do his or her past relevant work, the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled.
5. At the fifth and last step, the ALJ considers the assessment of the claimant's RFC and age, education, and work experience to see if the claimant can make an adjustment to other work. If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, the ALJ will find that the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work, the ALJ will find that the claimant is disabled.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99.
When the record demonstrates that substance abuse has occurred in conjunction with an alleged disability, the ALJ may not find a claimant disabled "if alcoholism or drug addiction would . . . be a contributing factor material to the . . . determination that the individual is disabled." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(J); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.935(a) & (b). In determining whether a claimant's DAA is material, the test is whether the individual would still be found disabled if he or she stopped using drugs or alcohol. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1535(b), 416.935(b); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2007); Sousa v. Callahan, 143 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir. 1998). The ALJ must "evaluate which of [the claimant's] current physical and mental limitations . . . would remain if [the claimant] stopped using drugs or alcohol and then determine whether any or all of [the claimant's] remaining limitations would be disabling." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1535(b)(2), 416.935(b)(2). If the ALJ determines that the claimant's remaining limitations are disabling, then the claimant's DAA is not a material contributing factor to the determination of disability, and the claimant is disabled, independent of his or her DAA. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1535(b)(2)(ii), 416.935(b)(2)(ii). The claimant has the burden of showing that he or she would qualify asdisabled absent DAA. See Parra, 481 F.3d at 748.
Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 13-2p sets forth the procedure for evaluating cases involving DAA, which the ruling defines as "Substance Use Disorders; that is, Substance Dependence or Substance Abuse as defined in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association." SSR 13-2p, 2013 WL 621536, at *3. It instructs adjudicators to Id. at *6. Although SSRs do not have the force of law, they "constitute Social Security Administration interpretations of the statute it administers and of its own regulations," and are given deference "unless they are plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the Act or regulations." Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1989).
SSR 13-2p(7) provides that where a claimant has co-occurring mental disorder(s), there must be "evidence in the case record that establishes that [the] claimant . . . would not be disabled in...
To continue reading
Request your trial