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.

Imperatrice v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

United States District Court, D. Arizona

March 30, 2017

Thomas Imperatrice, Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          ORDER

          HONORABLE JOHN Z. BOYLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Thomas Imperatrice seeks review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner's decision denying his application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1; Doc. 18.) For the reasons below, the Court will vacate the Commissioner's decision and remand this matter for further administrative proceedings.

         I. Background

         On July 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Title II application for disability insurance benefits. (AR at 14.)[1] In November 2012, Plaintiff's application was denied. (Id.) In May 2013, Plaintiff's application was denied upon reconsideration. (Id.) On November 14, 2013, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joan G. Knight. (Id.) On March 26, 2014, the ALJ ruled Plaintiff is not entitled to disability benefits because he was “not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act, ” through June 30, 2013, the last date insured. (Id. at 24.) On July 28, 2015, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. (Id. at 1.)

         On September 21, 2015, Plaintiff sought judicial review of the ALJ's decision by filing a Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 1.) On June 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Opening Brief, seeking remand of this case to the Social Security Administration for an award of benefits. (Doc. 18.) On August 4, 2016, Defendant filed a Response Brief in support of the Commissioner's decision. (Doc. 22.) On September 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Reply Brief. (Doc. 25.)

         II. Legal Standards

         a. Standard of Review

         The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), provides for judicial review of the Commissioner's disability benefits determinations. The Court may set aside the Commissioner's disability determination only if the determination is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007); Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 174 (9th Cir. 1990). “‘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); see also Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998).

         In determining whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, the Court considers the record as a whole, weighing evidence that both supports and detracts from the ALJ's conclusions. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720; Tylitzki v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 1411, 1413 (9th Cir. 1993). The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts, ambiguity, and determining credibility. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court “must uphold the ALJ's decision where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039. “However, 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, 495 F.3d at 630 (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). The Court reviews only those issues raised by the party challenging the ALJ's decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). Similarly, the Court reviews “only the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not rely.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014).

         b. The ALJ's Five-Step Evaluation Process

         To be eligible for Social Security benefits, a claimant must show an “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); see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). A person is under a disability only:

if his physical or mental impairment or 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).

         The ALJ follows a five-step evaluation process to determine whether an applicant is disabled under the Social Security Act:

The five-step process for disability determinations begins, at the first and second steps, by asking whether a claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity” and considering the severity of the claimant's impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(ii). If the inquiry continues beyond the second step, the third step asks whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listing under 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 and meets the duration requirement. See Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is considered disabled and benefits are awarded, ending the inquiry. See Id. If the process continues beyond the third step, the fourth and fifth steps consider the claimant's “residual functional capacity” in determining whether the claimant can still do past relevant work or make an adjustment to other work. See Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv)-(v).

Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 2013). “The burden of proof is on the claimant at steps one through four, but shifts to the Commissioner at step five.” Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009).

         Applying the five-step evaluation process, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled and is not entitled to benefits. (AR at 15-24.) At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity between his alleged onset date of October 9, 2009 and the last date insured. (Id. at 16.) At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: “lumbar spine degenerative disc disease (DDD) with stenosis; and obesity.” (Id.) At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments” in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. (Id. at 17.)

         At step four, the ALJ found the following:

[Plaintiff] had the [RFC] to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b[)], and as functionally described in Exhibit 4A, except he was limited to sitting and standing for one hour at a time before needing to change positions.

         (Id. at 18.) The ALJ further found that Plaintiff is “unable to perform any past relevant work” as a truck driver, apartment maintenance, or fitter. (Id. at 22.) The ALJ found, however, that “[t]hrough the dated last insured, considering [Plaintiff's] age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] could have performed.” (Id. at 23.) Given that finding, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff “was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from October 9, 2009, the alleged onset date, through June 30, 2013.” (Id. at 24.)

         III. ...


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.