Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Danh v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

United States District Court, D. Oregon

April 30, 2018

QUY PHUOC DANH, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

          Merrill Schneider, Schneider, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney, and Renata Gowie, Erin F. Highland, Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge.

         Quy Phuoc Danh seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) pursuant to the Social Security Act. Because the Commissioner's decision is based on the proper legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence, the decision is AFFIRMED.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The district court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based on the proper legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). “Substantial evidence” means “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). It means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039).

         Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's conclusion must be upheld. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). Variable interpretations of the evidence are insignificant if the Commissioner's interpretation is a rational reading of the record, and this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004). “[A] reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)). A reviewing court, however, may not affirm the Commissioner on a ground upon which the Commissioner did not rely. Id.; see also Bray, 554 F.3d at 1226.

         BACKGROUND

         A. Plaintiff's Applications

         Plaintiff was born in April 1960. AR 62. He was 49 years old as of the alleged disability onset date, and turned 55 during the adjudication period. Plaintiff filed his first application for DIB and SSI on February 16, 2011, alleging disability beginning on July 20, 2009. AR 84. In a written opinion dated March 1, 2013, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Robinson denied the Plaintiff's first application after finding that Plaintiff was not disabled under the meaning of the SSA. AR 81-97. Plaintiff did not appeal this decision so it became the final decision of the Commissioner.

         Plaintiff filed a second application for DIB and SSI on June 6, 2013, re-alleging disability beginning July 20, 2009. AR 206, 210. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from right-hand arthritis, high blood pressure, hepatitis C, gastroesophageal reflux disease, post-right wrist injury, bursitis in both shoulders, and post-right elbow dislocation. AR 231. He also alleges that he is unable to speak and understand English. AR 230. Plaintiff contends that his illiteracy, age, and physical limitations render him disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner denied Plaintiff's second application initially on August 14, 2013, and on reconsideration on January 9, 2014. AR 152, 157, 163, 166.

         On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff requested a hearing to review the denial of DIB and SSI. AR 169. A hearing was held before ALJ Paul Robeck on June 23, 2015. AR 42. On July 31, 2015, the ALJ issued an opinion finding Plaintiff not disabled. AR 37. On February 16, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. AR 1. Plaintiff seeks review of that decision.

         B. The Sequential Analysis

         A claimant is disabled if he or she 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). “Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential process for determining whether an applicant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.” Keyser v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2011); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (DIB), 416.920 (SSI); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.