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.

Otilia D. v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division

July 26, 2019

OTILIA D., [1] Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          YOULEE YIM YOU UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Otilia D. seeks judicial review of the final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (“Act”). This court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). The Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence; therefore, it is AFFIRMED.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff filed an application for DIB on September 5, 2012, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2007. Tr. 26. Plaintiff's claim was initially denied on April 10, 2013, and upon reconsideration on September 12, 2013. Id. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on December 18, 2014, in which plaintiff testified, as did a vocational expert (“VE”). Tr. 38-61. On February 13, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding plaintiff not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Tr. 26-33. After the Appeals Council denied her request for review, plaintiff filed a complaint in this court. Tr. 15-18. The ALJ's decision is therefore the Commissioner's final decision subject to review by this court. 20 C.F.R. § 422.210.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The reviewing 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. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007). This court must weigh the evidence that supports and detracts from the ALJ's conclusion and “‘may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.'” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007)). The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner when the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing the decision. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). Instead, where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's decision must be upheld if it is “supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1035.

         SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS AND ALJ FINDINGS

         Disability is the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or 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 engages in a five-step sequential inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. This sequential analysis is set forth in the Social Security regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920, in Ninth Circuit case law, Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999)), and in the ALJ's decision in this case, Tr. 26-28.

         At step one, the ALJ found plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. Tr. 28.

         At step two, the ALJ found plaintiff has the following severe impairments: old left shoulder fracture, status-post open reduction internal fixation of the left humerus and forearm, left knee and left ankle degenerative joint disease, and lumbar degenerative disc disease at the L5-S1 level. Id.

         At step three, the ALJ found plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment. Tr. 29. The ALJ next assessed plaintiff's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and determined that she could perform medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c), [2] finding she could lift and carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, stand and walk six hours in an eight-hour workday, sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday, frequently crouch, crawl, kneel, and stoop, and frequently reach in any direction with the left upper extremity. Id.

         At step four, the ALJ found plaintiff was able to perform her past relevant work as a farm worker. Tr. 31.

         While the ALJ was not required to continue the sequential analysis, she proceeded to step five and determined in the alternative that plaintiff also could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national ...


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.