United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Joseph Michael Barbera's
(“Plaintiff”) appeal of the Social Security
Administration's (“Social Security”) denial
of his claim for supplemental security income. The Court has
jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff's appeal pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c). 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. 20).
reviewing the Administrative Record (“A.R.”) and
the parties' briefing (Docs. 29, 32, 42),  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 (the “Act”) provides for
supplemental security income to certain individuals who are
aged 65 or older, blind, or disabled and have limited income.
42 U.S.C. § 1382. To be eligible for benefits based on
an alleged disability, 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. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A);
42 U.S.C. § 1382c(A)(3)(A). The claimant must also show
that the impairment is expected to cause death or last for a
continuous period of at least 12 months. Id.
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), 416.920(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), 416.920(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), 416.920(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 analysis.
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),
416.920(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), 416.920(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 experience. Id.
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 must also consider 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 1964, has a medical degree and worked as an
intern at a hospital. (A.R. 98, 111). In 2013, Plaintiff
filed an application for supplemental security income. (A.R.
241-61). Plaintiff's application alleged that on July 1,
2009, he became unable to work due to severe autism. (A.R.
111). Social Security denied the application on July 9, 2013.
(A.R. 154-58). In January 2014, upon Plaintiff's request
for reconsideration, Social Security affirmed the denial of
benefits. (A.R. 163-68). Plaintiff sought further review by
an ALJ, who conducted a hearing in September 2015. (A.R.
September 25, 2015 decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is
not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
(A.R. 64-73). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's
request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final
decision of the Social Security Commissioner. (A.R. 21-26).
Plaintiff thereafter filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) requesting
judicial review and reversal of the ALJ's decision.
The ALJ's Application of the Five-Step Disability
completed all five steps of the disability analysis before
finding that Plaintiff is not disabled ...