United States District Court, D. Arizona
Randy M. Montgold, Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
James
A. Teilborg, Senior United States District Judge.
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff's appeal of the denial of
his application for social security disability benefits.
Plaintiff makes the following claims of error on appeal: 1)
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to
give germane reasons for discounting the testimony of 3 lay
witnesses; 2) the ALJ failed to ask the appropriate questions
of the vocational expert; 3) the ALJ failed to discuss
Plaintiff's cubital tunnel syndrome; and 4) the ALJ
failed to explain his decision sufficiently with respect to
Plaintiff's mental residual functional capacity. (Doc. 19
at 1). Plaintiff seeks, “remand[] for further
proceedings including a de novo hearing and new
decision.” (Doc. 19 at 25).
I.
Legal Standard
A.
Standard of Review on Appeal
The
ALJ's decision to deny benefits will be overturned
“only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or
is based on legal error.” Magallanes v. Bowen,
881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation
omitted). “Substantial evidence” means
“more than a mere scintilla, but less than a
preponderance.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d
715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citation omitted). In
other words, substantial evidence means “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support [the ALJ's] conclusion.” Valentine v.
Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir.
2009).
“The
inquiry here is whether the record, read as a whole, yields
such evidence as would allow a reasonable mind to accept the
conclusions reached by the ALJ.” Gallant v.
Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal
citation omitted). In determining whether there is
substantial evidence to support a decision, the Court
considers the “record as a whole, weighing both the
evidence that supports the ALJ's conclusions and the
evidence that detracts from the” ALJ's conclusions.
Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720. “Where evidence is
susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, it is
the ALJ's conclusion which must be upheld; and in
reaching his findings, the ALJ is entitled to draw inferences
logically flowing from the evidence.” Gallant,
753 F.2d at 1453 (internal citations omitted); see Batson
v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d
1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). This is because “[t]he
trier of fact and not the reviewing court must resolve
conflicts in the evidence, and if the evidence can support
either outcome, the court may not substitute its judgment for
that of the ALJ.” Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d
1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992); see Young v. Sullivan,
911 F.2d 180, 184 (9th Cir. 1990).
The ALJ
is responsible for resolving conflicts in medical testimony,
determining credibility, and resolving ambiguities. See
Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995).
Thus, if on the whole record before the Court, substantial
evidence supports the ALJ's decision and the decision is
free from legal error, the Court must affirm it. See
Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989);
see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012). On the
other hand, the Court “may not affirm simply by
isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.”
Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007)
(internal quotation and citation omitted).
Notably,
the Court is not charged with reviewing the evidence and
making its own judgment as to whether Plaintiff is or is not
disabled. See Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874
(9th Cir. 2003). Rather, the Court's inquiry is
constrained to the reasons asserted by the ALJ and the
evidence relied upon in support of those reasons. See
id.
B.
Definition of Disability
To
qualify for disability benefits under the Social Security
Act, a claimant must show that, among other things, he is
“under a disability.” 42 U.S.C. §
423(a)(1)(E). The Social Security Act defines
“disability” as the “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 “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.” Id. §
423(d)(2)(A).
C.
The Five-Step Evaluation Process
To
evaluate a claim of disability, the Social Security
regulations set forth a five-step sequential process. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (2016); see also
Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721. A finding of “not
disabled” at any step in the sequential process will
end the inquiry. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The
claimant bears the burden of proof through the first four
steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner in the final
step. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721. The five steps are
as follows:
1.
First, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is
“doing substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not
disabled.
2. If
the claimant is not gainfully employed, the ALJ next
determines whether the claimant has a “severe medically
determinable physical or mental impairment.”
Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). To be considered
severe, the impairment must “significantly limit[] [the
claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work
activities.” Id. § 404.1520(c). Basic
work activities are the “abilities and aptitudes to do
most jobs, ” such as lifting, carrying, reaching,
understanding, carrying out and remembering simple
instructions, responding appropriately to co-workers, and
dealing with changes in routine. Id. §
404.1521(b). Further, the impairment must either have lasted
for “a continuous period of at least twelve months,
” be expected to last for such a period, or be expected
“to result in death.” Id. §
404.1509 (incorporated by reference in 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(ii)). The “step-two inquiry is a de
minimis screening device to dispose of groundless
claims.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290
(9th Cir. 1996). If the claimant does not have a severe
impairment, then the claimant is not disabled.
3.
Having found a severe impairment, the ALJ next determines
whether the impairment “meets or equals” one of
the impairments listed in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is found disabled
without further inquiry. If not, before proceeding to the
next step, the ALJ will make a finding regarding the
claimant's “residual functional capacity based on
all the relevant medical and other evidence in [the] case
record.” Id. § 404.1520(e). A
claimant's “residual functional capacity”
...