Defendant's Attorney: Victoria L. Francis
Description: Great Falls, Montana social security disability lawyers represented Plaintiff seeking review of the denial of his application for Social Security: DIWC/DIWW benefits by HHS.
Plaintiff protectively filed his applications for benefits under Titles II and XVI, respectively, of the Social Security Act on November 21, 2018, alleging disability since September 1, 2015. (Doc. 10 at 221, 227). Plaintiff's claims were denied initially and on reconsideration, and by an ALJ after an administrative hearing. (Doc. 10 at 75-76, 103-104, 108-120). Jurisdiction vests with this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
2
II. Legal Standards
A. Standard of Review
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, allowing for judicial review of social security benefit determinations after a final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing. See Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2014). A court may set aside the Commissioner's decision “only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006). “The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and resolving ambiguities.” Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). “Where evidence is susceptible for more than one rational interpretation,” the court must uphold the ALJ's decision. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). “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) (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006)).
3
B. Disability Determination
To qualify for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, a claimant bears the burden of proving that (1) he suffers from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of twelve months or more; and (2) the impairment renders the claimant incapable of performing past relevant work or any other substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 423(d)(2)(A). See also Batson v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2004).
In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. If a claimant is found to be “disabled” or “not disabled” at any step, the ALJ need not proceed further. Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1003 (9th Cir. 2005). The claimant bears the burden of establishing disability at steps one through four of this process. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).
At step one, the ALJ considers whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i) and 416.920(a)(4)(i). If so, then the claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has any impairments, singly or in combination, that qualify as severe under the regulations.
4
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the ALJ finds that the claimant does have one or more severe impairments, the ALJ will proceed to step three.
At step three the ALJ compares the claimant's impairments to the impairments listed in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) and 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the ALJ finds at step three that the claimant's impairments meet or equal the criteria of a listed impairment, then the claimant is considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) and 416.920(a)(4)(iii).
If the ALJ proceeds beyond step three, he must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity. The claimant's residual functional capacity is an assessment of the work-related physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a regular and continuing basis despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a); Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p. The assessment of a claimant's residual functional capacity is a critical part of steps four and five of the sequential evaluation process.
At step four, the ALJ considers whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) and 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant establishes an inability to engage in past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to establish that the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, taking into consideration claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) and 416.920(4)(v). The ALJ may satisfy this burden through the testimony of a vocational expert or by referring to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines set forth in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 2. If the ALJ meets this burden, the claimant is not disabled.
III. Discussion
The ALJ followed the five-step sequential evaluation process in evaluating Plaintiff's claim. At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of September 1, 2015. (Doc. 10 at 111). At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: autoimmune disorders, including Sicca syndrome and autoimmune encephalitis with persistent postural-perceptual vertigo/dizziness, and chronic baseline disequilibrium; chronic inflammatory demyelination polyneuritis; and attention hyper deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). (Doc. 10 at 111).
At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments described in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. (Doc. 10 at 112).
The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) with the following limitations:
[H]e can stand and/or walk for up to four hours in an eight-hour workday, can occasionally balance on uneven surfaces, can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl, can occasionally climb stairs or ramps, can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, can occasionally be exposed to vibrations, can never be exposed to unprotected heights or moving machinery parts, can never operate a motor vehicle or heavy equipment, can frequently read small print and/or large print, and cannot perform work which requires viewing a computer screen and/or a video monitor. Plaintiff can understand and remember simple instructions, make simple work-related decisions, and carry-out simple instructions.
(Doc. 10 at 114). At step four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had no past relevant work. (Doc. 10 at 119). Proceeding to step five, the ALJ found based on the vocational expert's testimony that there were other jobs existing in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform (Doc. 10 at 119-20).
Plaintiff argues the ALJ's decision is not supported substantial evidence and raises several issues on appeal. First, Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ improperly assessed and rejected Plaintiff's hearing testimony. Second, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ issued an incomplete finding regarding Plaintiff's residual functioning capacity. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly assessed and rejected the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physician.
Outcome: Affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: