United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
James
A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge.
Pending
before the Court is Linda Weirick's
(“Plaintiff”) appeal from the Social Security
Commissioner's (“Commissioner”) denial of her
application for Social Security Disability Insurance
(“SSDI”) benefits under Title II of the Social
Security Act. (Doc. 14 at 1). On appeal, Plaintiff argues
that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred
by performing analysis and making findings that were not
supported by the record, inappropriately evaluating medical
opinion evidence, and incorrectly evaluating Plaintiff's
subjective symptom testimony. (Id. at 11-13, 19).
The Court now rules on Plaintiff's appeal.
I.
Background
Plaintiff
was forty-seven years old on February 1, 2012, which she
alleges was the onset date of her disability. (Id.
at 2). Plaintiff has a high school education and past work
experience as a billing clerk, billing supervisor, and lost
claim clerk. (Id., Tr. 49). Plaintiff claims that
she cannot work due to constant pain in her back and pelvis,
as well as urinary incontinence, which make it difficult for
her to sit and stand for long periods of time or lift more
than ten to fifteen pounds. (Doc. 14 at 2). Plaintiff asserts
that medications limit her ability to concentrate and focus
on tasks, and fail to provide sustained pain relief.
(Id.)
On
October 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Title II Application for
SSDI benefits. (Id. at I, Tr. 21). Plaintiff's
claim was initially denied on April 29, 2014, and denied
again on reconsideration on October 16, 2014. (Tr. 21).
Plaintiff subsequently filed a written request for hearing on
October 28, 2014, and appeared and testified at a hearing on
February 25, 2016. (Id.) The ALJ issued a decision
on March 24, 2016, concluding that Plaintiff was not under a
disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act for
the relevant dates. (Id. at 21, 33). The Appeals
Council denied review on August 18, 2017, making the
ALJ's decision to deny benefits the Commissioner's
final decision. (Id. at 1). This appeal followed.
II.
Legal Standard
A
reviewing court, in dealing with a judgment from an
administrative agency which it alone is authorized to make,
may rely only on evidence discussed by the ALJ in making its
decision. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Chenery
Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947); see Connett v.
Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, this
Court's review is constrained to the reasons asserted by
the ALJ and evidence supporting those reasons. See
Connett, 340 F.3d at 874.
A.
Definition of a Disability
A
claimant can qualify for Social Security disability benefits
only if she can show that, among other things, she is
disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). A disability, as
relevant to this matter, [1] is defined as 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.” Id. § 423(d)(1)(A).
A
person is disabled only if her “physical or mental
impairment or impairments are of such severity that [she] is
not only unable to do [her] previous work but cannot,
considering [her] age, education, and work experience, engage
in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in
the national economy.” Id. §
423(d)(2)(A).
B.
The Five-Step Evaluation Process
The
Social Security regulations set forth a five-step sequential
evaluation process for evaluating a claim of disability. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(h); see also Benton ex rel.
Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2003).
If the ALJ determines that the claimant is
“disabled” or “not disabled” at any
step of the inquiry, the ALJ ends the evaluation process. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). If the ALJ does not make such a
finding, the ALJ will proceed to the next step in the
process. Id. The claimant bears the burden of proof
at steps one through four, but that burden shifts to the
Commissioner at step five. Tacket v. Apfel, 180 F.3d
1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999).
In
making a determination on the claimant's disability
through the five-step process, the ALJ must “consider
all evidence in [the claimant's] case record.” 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). This evidence includes medical
opinions, records, self-reported symptoms, and third-party
reporting. See Id. §§ 404.1527, 404.1529;
SSR 06-3p, 71 Fed. Reg. 45593-03 (Aug. 9, 2006).
i.
Substantial Gainful Activity
At the
first step of the evaluation process, the ALJ determines if
the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged
in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not
disabled. Id.
The ALJ
found that Plaintiff had not engaged in “substantial
gainful activity during the period from her alleged onset
date of February 1, 2012 through her date last insured of
December 31, 2015.” (Tr. 24). Accordingly, the ALJ
proceeded to the next step in the evaluation process.
ii.
Severe Medical Impairments
At the
second step, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the
claimant's impairments. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(ii). “If [the claimant] do[es] not have
a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment
. . . [the ALJ] will find that [the claimant is] not
disabled.” Id. A “severe
impairment” is one which “significantly limits
[the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic
work activities.” Id. § 404.1520(c).
Basic work activities are “the abilities and aptitudes
necessary to do most jobs.” Id. §
404.1522(b). Examples of basic work activities include:
(1) Physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting,
lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling;
(2) Capacities for setting, hearing and speaking; (3)
Understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple
instructions; (4) Use of judgment; (5) Responding
appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work
situations; and (6) Dealing with changes in a routine work
setting.
Id.
Additionally,
unless the claimant's impairment is expected to result in
death, “it must have lasted or be expected to last for
a continuous period of at least 12 months” for the
claimant to be found disabled. Id. § 404.1509
(incorporated by reference in id. §
404.1520(a)(4)(ii)).
The ALJ
found that, through the date last insured, Plaintiff suffered
from two physical impairments: genitourinary disorder and
spine disorder. (Tr. 24). The ALJ relied on evidence in the
medical record which “substantiate[d] [Plaintiff's]
allegations that these impairments imposed more than a
minimal impact on [Plaintiff's] ability to perform basic
work activities for a continuous period of twelve consecutive
months.” (Id.) The ALJ concluded that
Plaintiff did not suffer from any severe mental impairments.
(Id. at 24-25).
Because
the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from two physical
medical impairments, she continued to the next step.
iii.
Severity of Impairments and Residual Functional
Capacity
At the
third step, having found a medically determinable impairment,
the ALJ must consider the severity of the claimant's
impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). This
consideration requires that the ALJ determine if the
impairment “meets or equals” one of the
impairments listed in the regulations. Id. If the
impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, and meets the
duration requirement, then the ALJ will find that the
claimant is disabled. Id. If the claimant's
impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, then
the ALJ must assess the claimant's “residual
functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and
other evidence in [the claimant's] case record.”
Id. § 404.1520(e). In assessing the
claimant's residual functional capacity
(“RFC”), the ALJ will consider the claimant's
“impairment(s), and any related symptoms, such as pain,
[that] may cause physical and mental limitations that affect
what [the claimant] can do in a work setting. [The
claimant's] residual functional capacity is the most [the
claimant] can still do despite [the claimant's]
limitations.” Id. § 404.1545(a)(1).
The ALJ
considered the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1 and found that Plaintiff did not have
any impairments that met or equaled one of the listed
impairments. (Tr. 26); 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d), 404.1525,
404.1526. The ALJ specifically considered the 1.00 series of
listings (musculoskeletal system) and the 6.00 series of
listings (genitourinary disorders). (Tr. 26). Because the ALJ
found that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet a listed
impairment, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff's RFC with
“careful consideration of the entire record.”
(Id.)
The ALJ
determined that Plaintiff had the RFC to “perform light
work . . . except the claimant can stand/walk for two hours
at a time before needing to sit for 10 minutes; never climb
ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; occasionally kneel, crouch,
crawl, and climb ramps and stairs; frequently stoop; and
frequently reach overhead with the right upper
extremity.” (Id.) The ALJ additionally
determined that Plaintiff could “never be around
unprotected heights[, ] . . . [could] occasionally operate a
motor vehicle[, ] . . . [was] limited to frequent exposure to
humidity, wetness, dust, odors, fumes, and pulmonary
irritants[, and] . . . [was] limited to simple work-related
decisions when dealing with changes in the work
setting.” (Id.) Finally, the ALJ concluded
that, “in addition to normal breaks, ” Plaintiff
would be “off task 5 percent of the time in an
eight-hour workday.” (Id.)
iv.
Ability to Perform Past Relevant Work
At the
fourth step, the ALJ considers the claimant's ability to
perform “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(iv). The ALJ compares the claimant's RFC
with the physical and mental demands of the claimant's
past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(f). If the
claimant can still perform her past relevant work, the ALJ
will find that the claimant is not disabled. Id.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).
Plaintiff's
past relevant work included experience as a billing clerk,
billing supervisor, and loss claim clerk. (Tr. 31). The ALJ,
relying on the previously-determined RFC and testimony from
an impartial vocational expert, found that Plaintiff ...