United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL PAPAK, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Ann Coffman filed this action July 22, 2013, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her applications for supplemental security income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the "Act") and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Act. This court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).
Coffman argues that by erroneously rejecting medical evidence and erroneously rejecting her testimony regarding the extent of her impairments, the Commissioner failed properly to assess her residual functional capacity after completing step three of the five-step sequential process for analyzing a Social Security claimant's entitlement to benefits, and for that reason erred by finding Coffman capable of performing her past relevant work as a wax pattern repairer and housekeeper at step four of the process.
I have considered all of the parties' briefs and all of the evidence in the administrative record. For the reasons set forth below, Coffman's action is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the calculation and payment of benefits.
DISABILITY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
To establish disability within the meaning of the Act, a claimant must demonstrate an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected... to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential process for determining whether a claimant has made the requisite demonstration. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). At the first four steps of the process, the burden of proof is on the claimant; only at the fifth and final step does the burden of proof shift to the Commissioner. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999).
At the first step, the Administrative Law Judge considers the claimant's work activity, if any. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 140; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the ALJ finds that the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, the claimant will be found not disabled. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 140; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(i), 416.920(b). Otherwise, the evaluation will proceed to the second step.
At the second step, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the claimant's impairments. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 140-141; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is "severe" if it significantly limits the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities and is expected to persist for a period of twelve months or longer. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). The ability to perform basic work activities is defined as "the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs." 20 C.F.R. § 416.921(b); see also Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141. If the ALJ finds that the claimant's impairments are not severe or do not meet the duration requirement, the claimant will be found not disabled. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(c). Nevertheless, it is well established that "the step-two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims." Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996), citing Bowen, 482 U.S. at 153-154. "An impairment or combination of impairments can be found not severe' only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual(']s ability to work." Id, quoting S.S.R. 85-28, 1985 SSR LEXIS 19 (1985).
If the claimant's impairments are severe, the evaluation will proceed to the third step, at which the ALJ determines whether the claimant's impairments meet or equal "one of a number of listed impairments that the [Commissioner] acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity." Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d). If the claimant's impairments are equivalent to one of the impairments enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404, subpt. P, app. 1, the claimant will conclusively be found disabled. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d).
If the claimant's impairments are not equivalent to one of the enumerated impairments, between the third and the fourth steps the ALJ is required to assess the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in the claimant's case record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). The RFC is an estimate of the claimant's capacity to perform sustained, work-related physical and/or mental activities on a regular and continuing basis,  despite the limitations imposed by the claimant's impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a); see also S.S.R. No. 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5 (July 2, 1996).
At the fourth step of the evaluation process, the ALJ considers the RFC in relation to the claimant's past relevant work. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If, in light of the claimant's RFC, the ALJ determines that the claimant can still perform his or her past relevant work, the claimant will be found not disabled. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 141; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1520(f), 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(f). In the event the claimant is no longer capable of performing his or her past relevant work, the evaluation will proceed to the fifth and final step, at which the burden of proof shifts, for the first time, to the Commissioner.
At the fifth step of the evaluation process, the ALJ considers the RFC in relation to the claimant's age, education, and work experience to determine whether a person with those characteristics and RFC could perform any jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 142; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(g), 404.1560©, 404.1566, 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.920(g), 416.960(c), 416.966. If the Commissioner meets her burden to demonstrate the existence in significant numbers in the national economy of jobs capable of being performed by a person with the RFC assessed by the ALJ between the third and fourth steps of the five-step process, the claimant is found not to be disabled. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 142; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(g), 404.1560(c), 404.1566, 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.920(g), 416.960(c), 416.966. A claimant will be found entitled to benefits if the Commissioner fails to meet that burden at the fifth step. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 142; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(g), 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.920(g).
A reviewing court must affirm an Administrative Law Judge's decision if the ALJ applied proper legal standards and his or her findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). "Substantial evidence' means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007), citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006).
The court must review the record as a whole, "weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's conclusion." Id, quoting Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. See id, citing Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882; see also Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, the court may not rely upon its own independent findings of fact in determining whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence of record. See Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003), citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947). If the ALJ's interpretation of the evidence is rational, it is immaterial that the evidence may be "susceptible [of] more than one rational interpretation." Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989), citing Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1984).
SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Coffman was born February 27, 1959. Tr. 249. She attended school through the tenth grade, and has received no subsequent formal education or vocational training. Tr. 254. According to the evidence of record, prior to her claimed disability onset date of March 15, 2008, Coffman worked full-time as a pattern finisher from 1984 to 1999, worked full-time as a housekeeper from 2002 through 2004, worked full-time as a production/assembler from 2005 to 2007 and worked full-time as an operator/production work from January 2007 through April 2008. Tr. 254.
In October 2006, Coffman saw Christopher Baldwin, M.D., reporting right shoulder pain, lightheadedness, and facial numbness. Tr. 331. Dr. Baldwin diagnosed right rotator cuff tendonitis and orthostatis from dehydration and anxiety. In November 2006 Coffman complained of dizziness lasting three weeks, nausea and vomiting, and right ear pain. Tr. 330. Dr. Baldwin diagnosed anxiety causing dizziness and prescribed klonopin and mecalzine. On December 1, 2006, Coffman was seen by Jimmy Liao, M.D., reporting recurrent lightheadedness, stress, and depression. Tr. 328. She was crying. Coffman had previously taken antidepressants. Dr. Liao diagnosed rotator cuff syndrome and anxiety/depression and prescribed Prozac.
On December 8, 2006, Coffman was seen by Kathleen Bonilla at the Cascadia Walk-In Clinic for extreme anxiety and nightmares. Tr. 299. Coffman was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"), assessed a GAF of 45, and prescribed Seroquel. Tr. 300.
On December 13, 2006, Coffman returned to the Clinic and George H. Miller, P.A.-C. diagnosed PTSD and an adjustment disorder related to the recent loss of an abusive relationship. Tr. 297. He prescribed Clonidine. The next day Coffman returned, reporting nightmares and dissociation. Tr. 296. Her affect was labile and tearful.
Coffman returned to the Clinic on December 28, 2006, and was seen by Robert Rees, Q.M.H.P. Tr. 294. She was "dramatic and sad, " angry, irritable and labile. Id. Coffman was seen by Physician's Assistant Miller, and was tearful. Miller's impression was PTSD and acute adjustment disorder with anxiety. He prescribed Vistaril. Tr. 295.
On February 15, 2007, Coffman was seen by Jodi DeMunter, M.D., to establish care. Tr. 322. Coffman reported right shoulder pain for the past month and depression, better for the last three months while on ...