United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
ROBERT M. CRUTCHER, III, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Kathryn Tassinari, Brent Wells, Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C., Eugene, Oregon Attorney for Plaintiff.
S. Amanda Marshall, United States Attorney District of Oregon, Ronald K. Silver, Assistant United States Attorney Portland, Oregon, Sarah L. Martin, Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration, Seattle, Washington Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
GARR M. KING, District Judge.
Plaintiff Robert M. Crutcher brings this action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits ("SSI"). I reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand for a finding of disability.
The Social Security Act (the "Act") provides for payment of disability insurance benefits to people who have contributed to the Social Security program and who suffer from a physical or mental disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1). In addition, under the Act, supplemental security income benefits may be available to individuals who are age 65 or over, blind, or disabled, but who do not have insured status under the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a).
The 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 cause death or to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). An individual will be determined to be disabled only if his physical or mental impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining if a person is eligible for either DIB or SSI due to disability. The evaluation is carried out by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The claimant has the burden of proof on the first four steps. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. First, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." If the claimant is engaged in such activity, disability benefits are denied. Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to step two and determines whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. A severe impairment is one "which significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520©), 416.920©). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, disability benefits are denied.
If the impairment is severe, the ALJ proceeds to the third step to determine whether the impairment is equivalent to one of a number of listed impairments that the Commissioner acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled. If the impairment is not one that is presumed to be disabling, the ALJ proceeds to the fourth step to determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing work which the claimant performed in the past. If the claimant is able to perform work she performed in the past, the ALJ makes a finding of "not disabled" and disability benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).
If the claimant is unable to perform work performed in the past, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step to determine if the claimant can perform other work in the national economy in light of his age, education, and work experience. The burden shifts to the Commissioner to show what gainful work activities are within the claimant's capabilities. Parra, 481 F.3d at 746. The claimant is entitled to disability benefits only if he is unable to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court must affirm a denial of benefits if the denial is supported by substantial evidence and is based on correct legal standards. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" and is more than a "mere scintilla" of the evidence but less than a preponderance. Id . (internal quotation omitted). The court must uphold the ALJ's findings if they "are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record[, ]" even if the evidence is susceptible to multiple rational interpretations. Id.
THE ALJ'S DECISION
The ALJ found Crutcher has severe impairments of dysthymia; inguinal hernia, status post repair in 2011; alcohol abuse; and polysubstance abuse in remission. The ALJ also found that these impairments, either singly or in combination, are not severe enough to meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. After reviewing the record, the ALJ found Crutcher has the residual functional capacity to perform light work except he should not have jobs that require him to work with the public as an integral part of a work crew, should perform only entry-level job duties, and should be given only entry-level instructions. Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ found Crutcher could work as an electronic worker, electric assembler, or basket filler and, thus, is not disabled under the Act.
Crutcher alleges he became disabled on November 5, 2010,  when he was 47 years old. He left school in the eleventh grade and never earned a GED. Crutcher has worked as an auto mechanic, a cashier, a lubrication technician, and a parts puller in a wrecking yard, but he has never earned over $1, 500 in a year.
Crutcher had not worked other than occasional odd jobs since 2000 and was supported to a large extent by his mother. He moved from place to place, including his mother's home, motels when his mother paid for the room, his ex-girlfriend's home, and shelters. At the time of the hearing, Crutcher saw a counselor weekly and took medication for depression and anxiety.
Although Crutcher had two hernia repairs, he continues to have problems with abdominal pain and the hernia occasionally reappearing. Because of the hernia, he claims he cannot walk more than six blocks, bend over, or lift more than ten or fifteen pounds without straining. Abdominal pain and vomiting have sent Crutcher to the emergency room or urgent care centers ...