Merrill Schneider, SCHNEIDER KERR LAW OFFICES, Portland, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Adrian L. Brown, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DISTRICT OF OREGON, Portland, OR, Jeffrey R. McClain, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Seattle, WA, Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Ingrid Theresa Rose brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner"). The Commissioner found Plaintiff not disabled and denied her application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income benefits ("SSIB") under Titles II and XVI of the Act, respectively. For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
On February 23, 2009, Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSIB alleging disability beginning on May 1, 2004. Tr. 20. Plaintiff's claims were denied on May 21, 2009, and upon reconsideration on October 2, 2009. Id . A hearing was held on February 17, 2011, before Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws (the "ALJ"). Tr. 20, 26. On March 14, 2011, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 26. On September 23, 2010, Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ's decision. Tr. 8. On September 10, 2012, the Appeals Council issued an order denying Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Id . This appeal followed.
The parties are familiar with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Therefore, the evidence will not be repeated except as necessary to explain my decision.
SEQUENTIAL DISABILITY EVALUATION
A claimant is disabled if he is 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 Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin. , 574 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009). The claimant bears the ultimate burden of proving disability. Id.
At Step One, 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). At Step Two, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a "medically severe impairment or combination of impairments." Yuckert , 482 U.S. at 140-41; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If not, the claimant is not disabled.
At 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; see 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.
At Step Four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant, despite any impairments, has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform "past relevant work." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If so, the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner.
At Step Five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can perform other work. Yuckert , 482 U.S. at 141-42; see 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 ...