United States District Court, D. Arizona
Amelia R. Reichley, Plaintiff,
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Amelia R. Reichley’s
(“Plaintiff”) appeal of the Social Security
Administration’s (“Social Security”) denial
of her applications for disability insurance benefits. The
Court has jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff’s appeal
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), the Court has the power to enter, based upon the
pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming,
modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security, with or without remanding the case for a
rehearing. Both parties have consented to the exercise of
U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 10).
reviewing the Administrative Record (“A.R.”) and
the parties’ briefing (Docs. 16, 20, 25), the Court
finds that the Administrative Law Judge’s
(“ALJ”) decision is supported by substantial
evidence and is free of harmful legal error. The decision is
Disability Analysis: Five-Step Evaluation
Social Security Act provides for disability insurance
benefits to those who have contributed to the Social Security
program and who suffer from a physical or mental disability.
42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1). To be eligible for benefits, the
claimant must show that he or she suffers from a medically
determinable physical or mental impairment that prohibits him
or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. The
claimant must also show that the impairment is expected to
cause death or last for a continuous period of at least 12
months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
decide if a claimant is entitled to Social Security benefits,
an ALJ conducts an analysis consisting of five questions,
which are considered in sequential steps. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a). The claimant has the burden of proof regarding
the first four steps:
Step One: Is the claimant engaged
in “substantial gainful activity”? If so, the
analysis ends and disability benefits are denied. Otherwise,
the ALJ proceeds to step two.
Step Two: Does the claimant have 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(c). If the claimant
does not have a severe impairment or combination of
impairments, disability benefits are denied at this step.
Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to step three.
Step Three: Is the impairment
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).
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 of the
Step Four: Does the impairment
prevent the claimant from performing work which the claimant
performed in the past? If not, the claimant is “not
disabled” and disability benefits are denied without
continuing the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).
Otherwise, the ALJ proceeds to the last step.
analysis proceeds to the final question, the burden of proof
shifts to the Commissioner:
Step Five: Can the claimant perform
other work in the national economy in light of his or her
age, education, and work experience? The claimant is entitled
to disability benefits only if he or she is unable to perform
other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). Social Security is
responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that
other work exists in significant numbers in the national
economy that the claimant can do, given the claimant’s
residual functional capacity, age, education, and work
Standard of Review Applicable to ALJ’s
Court must affirm an ALJ’s decision if it is supported
by substantial evidence and is based on correct legal
standards. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110
(9th Cir. 2012); Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172,
174 (9th Cir. 1990). Although “substantial
evidence” is less than a preponderance, it is more than
a “mere scintilla.” Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting
Consolidated Edison v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229
(1938)). It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
determining whether substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s decision, the Court considers the record as a
whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts
from the ALJ’s conclusions. Reddick v. Chater,
157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998); Tylitzki v.
Shalala, 999 F.2d 1411, 1413 (9th Cir. 1993). If there
is sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s
determination, the Court cannot substitute its own
determination. See Morgan v. Comm’r of the Social
Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999)
(“Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one
rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion
that must be upheld.”); Magallanes v. Bowen,
881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). This is because the ALJ,
not the Court, is responsible for resolving conflicts,
ambiguity, and determining credibility. Magallanes,
881 F.2d at 750; see also Andrews v. Shalala, 53
F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995).
Court also considers the harmless error doctrine when
reviewing an ALJ’s decision. This doctrine provides
that an ALJ’s decision need not be remanded or reversed
if it is clear from the record that the error is
“inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability
determination.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d
1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted);
Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115 (an error is harmless so
long as there remains substantial evidence supporting the
ALJ’s decision and the error “does not negate the
validity of the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion”)
who was born in 1974, has been employed as a medical biller.
(A.R. 62, 68). In 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for
disability insurance benefits. (A.R. 152-53).
Plaintiff’s application alleged that on April 1, 2010,
she became unable to work due to the following conditions:
fibromyalgia, lupus, diabetes with vision impairments, and
Epstein-Barr virus. (A.R. 68). Social Security denied the
applications in December 2012. (A.R. 93-95). In November
2013, upon Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration,
Social Security affirmed the denial of benefits. (A.R.
100-01). Plaintiff sought further review by an ALJ, who
conducted a hearing in October 2014. (A.R. 36-66). At the
hearing, Plaintiff stated that she amended the alleged
disability onset date to February 1, 2013. (A.R. 46). In his
November 20, 2014 decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has
not been under a disability from February 1, 2013 through the
date of the decision. (A.R. 18-29).
appealed the ALJ’s ruling. The Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff’s request for review, making the ALJ’s
decision the final decision of the Social Security
Commissioner. (A.R. 3-8). On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed
a Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
requesting judicial review and reversal of the ALJ’s
The ALJ’s Application of the Five-Step Disability
Analysis 1. Step One: Engagement in
“Substantial Gainful Activity”
determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since February 1, 2013, the amended alleged
disability onset date. (A.R. 20). Neither party disputes this
Step Two: Presence of Medically Severe ...