United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is Craig Allen Carlson's
(“Plaintiff”) appeal of the Social Security
Administration's (“Social Security”) denial
of his application 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. 17).
reviewing the Administrative Record (“A.R.”) and
the parties' briefing (Docs. 20, 24), 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 therefore affirmed.
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. Id.
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 1966, has been employed as a storage facility
rental clerk, motorcycle salesman, warehouse manager, piano
mover, and telemarketer. (A.R. 94, 95, 100). In 2012,
Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance
benefits. (A.R. 216-17). Plaintiff's application alleged
that on October 1, 2007, he became unable to work due to the
following conditions: sciatica, gastric sleeve surgery, Type
II diabetes with neuropathy, “pain in legs, ”
“too much tissue pressing on spine/hereditary, ”
high blood pressure, depression, tinnitus, “limited
mobility, ” deafness in the left ear, and “poor
hearing in right ear.” (A.R. 100-01). Social Security
denied the applications in February 2013. (A.R. 143-45). In
November 2013, upon Plaintiff's request for
reconsideration, Social Security affirmed the denial of
benefits. (A.R. 146-49). Plaintiff sought further review by
an ALJ, who conducted a hearing in September 2014. (A.R.
44-98, 150-51). On the date of the hearing, Plaintiff amended
his alleged disability onset date to October 29, 2010. (A.R.
February 25, 2015 decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has
not been under a disability from October 29, 2010 through
December 31, 2012, the date last insured. (A.R. 25-37). The
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review,
making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the
Social Security Commissioner. (A.R. 4-9). On July 20, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) requesting judicial review and reversal of the
The ALJ's Application of the Five-Step Disability
Step One: Engagement in “Substantial Gainful
determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial
gainful activity from October 29, 2010, the amended alleged
disability onset date, through the date last insured of
December 31, 2012. (A.R. 27). Neither party disputes this
Step Two: Presence of Medically Severe Impairment/Combination
found that Plaintiff has the following severe impairments:
(i) degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, thoracic
spine, and cervical spine; (ii) obstructive sleep apnea;
(iii) degenerative joint disease; (iv) bilateral hand/wrist
tenosynovitis; (v) trigger finger; (vi) Type II diabetes
mellitus; (vii) chronic pain syndrome; and (ix) obesity.
(A.R. 27). This determination is unchallenged.
Step Three: Presence of Listed Impairment(s)
found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the
severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 of the Social Security
regulations. (A.R. 29-30). Neither party disputes the
ALJ's determination at this step.
Step Four: Capacity to ...