United States District Court, D. Oregon
MARELENE YESQUEN, Black, Chapman, Webber & Stevens, Medford, OR Attorneys for Plaintiff.
S. AMANDA MARSHALL, United States Attorney, RONALD K. SILVER, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, OR, COURTNEY GARCIA, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration, Seattle, WA, Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Edwin William Weichers seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) in which she denied Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act. This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Following a review of the record, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner and DISMISSES this matter.
Plaintiff filed his application for DIB on May 5, 2009, and alleged a disability onset date of February 12, 2008. Tr. 154. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on January 12, 2012. Tr. 57-90. At the hearing Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. Plaintiff and a vocational expert (VE) testified.
The ALJ issued a decision on January 27, 2012, in which he found Plaintiff was not disabled because he failed to establish the existence of a severe impairment before his date last insured of December 31, 2008. Tr. 15. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.984(d), that decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on July 9, 2013, when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's subsequent request for review. Tr. 1-5.
On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court seeking review of the Commissioner's decision.
Plaintiff was born in July 1961 and was 46 years old on his alleged onset date. He completed the eighth grade. Tr. 161. Plaintiff has past relevant work experience as an owner of a furniture and automotive upholstery business. Tr. 62-63.
Plaintiff alleges disability due to "lower back injury, left foot injury, neck pain, feet pain, daily headaches, hand cramps (stiffness). My back injury was in 1992 and I have never been the same since. I am only able to get around three hours of sleep at night due to my lower back pain. The pain radiates down my leg. I cannot put full pressure on my left side due to unbearable pain and discomfort." Tr. 154.
The initial burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish disability. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). To meet this burden, a claimant must demonstrate his inability "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). The ALJ must develop the record when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence. McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011)(quoting Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001)).
The district court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based on proper legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See also Brewes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence is "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Molina, 674 F.3d. at 1110-11 (quoting Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009)). It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance. Id. (citing Valentine, 574 F.3d at 690).
The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in the medical evidence, and resolving ambiguities. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). The court must weigh all of the evidence whether it supports or detracts from the Commissioner's decision. Ryan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). Even when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the court must uphold the Commissioner's findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record. Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2012). The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006).
I. The Regulatory Sequential ...