United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge
At
issue is the denial of Plaintiff Jason Steffes's
Applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income by the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) under the Social Security
Act (“the Act”). Plaintiff filed a Complaint
(Doc. 1) with this Court seeking judicial review of that
denial, and the Court now addresses Plaintiff's Opening
Brief (Doc. 11, “Pl.'s Br.”), Defendant
Social Security Administration Commissioner's Opposition
(Doc. 12, “Def.'s Br.”), and Plaintiff's
Reply (Doc. 13, “Reply”). The Court has reviewed
the briefs and Administrative Record (Doc. 10, R.) and now
reverses the Administrative Law Judge's decision (R. at
42-50) as upheld by the Appeals Council (R. at 1-3).
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income on August 20, 2014, for a period
of disability beginning April 1, 2014. (R. at 42.)
Plaintiff's claims were denied initially on January 12,
2015 (R. at 42), and on reconsideration on May 6, 2015 (R. at
42). Plaintiff then testified at a hearing held before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on February 21,
2017. (R. at 42.) On June 26, 2017, the ALJ denied
Plaintiff's Applications. (R. at 50.) On May 8, 2018, the
Appeals Council denied a request for review of the ALJ's
decision. (R. at 1-3.) On June 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed this
action seeking judicial review of the denial.
The
Court has reviewed the medical evidence in its entirety and
finds it unnecessary to provide a complete summary here. The
pertinent medical evidence will be discussed in addressing
the issues raised by the parties. In short, upon considering
the medical records and opinions, the ALJ evaluated
Plaintiff's disability based on the following alleged
impairments: type 1 diabetes; chronic pancreatitis; and right
shoulder rotator cuff impingement. (R. at 45.) Ultimately,
the ALJ determined that these impairments were not severe
because “they present[ed] only slight abnormalities and
[did] not have more than a minimal effect on . . .
[Plaintiff's] ability to do basic physical or mental
work.” (R. at 50.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
In
determining whether to reverse an ALJ's decision, the
district court reviews only those issues raised by the party
challenging the decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236
F.3d 503, 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). 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). Substantial evidence is more than a
scintilla, but less than a preponderance; it is relevant
evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion considering the record as a whole.
Id. To determine whether substantial evidence
supports a decision, the court must consider the record as a
whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a
“specific quantum of supporting evidence.”
Id. As a general rule, “[w]here the evidence
is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one
of which supports the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's
conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas v.
Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted).
To
determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the
Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a). The claimant bears the burden of proof on the
first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner
at step five. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098
(9th Cir. 1999). At the first step, the ALJ determines
whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial
gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so,
the claimant is not disabled and the inquiry ends.
Id. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the
claimant has a “severe” medically determinable
physical or mental impairment. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled and
the inquiry ends. Id. Steps three through five
“require the ALJ to evaluate whether the claimant's
impairment satisfies certain statutory requirements entitling
him to a disability finding.” Webb v.
Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005). “If
the impairment does not, the ALJ must assess whether the
claimant remains capable of doing his prior work or engaging
in alternative employment.” Id.
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff
raises two arguments for the Court's consideration: (1)
the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff's chronic
pancreatitis, diabetes, and joint pain were not severe
impairments; and (2) in doing so, the ALJ erred in
discrediting Plaintiff's symptom testimony. (Pl.'s
Br. at 1.)
A.
The ALJ Erred in Finding Plaintiff's Pancreatitis Was Not
a Severe Impairment
An ALJ
may find an impairment or combination of impairments is not
severe “only if the evidence establishes a
slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on
an individual's ability to work.” Webb v.
Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (alteration
in original) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d
1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996)). Step two's “de
minimis” standard is intended to “dispose of
groundless claims.” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290
(citing Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 153-54
(1987)). An ALJ's conclusion that a Plaintiff lacks a
medically severe impairment or combination of impairments
must be “clearly established by medical
evidence.” Id. at 687 (quoting S.S.R. No.
85-28 (1985)). Put another way, the question is whether
“the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the
medical evidence clearly established that [Plaintiff] did not
have a medically severe impairment or combination of
impairments.” Webb, 433 F.3d at 687 (9th Cir.
2005) (citation omitted); see also SSR 85-28,
Titles II and XVI: Medical Impairments That Are Not
Severe (1985) (“Great care should be exercised in
applying the not severe impairment concept. If an adjudicator
is unable to determine clearly the effect of an impairment or
combination of impairments on the individual's ability to
do basic work activities, the sequential evaluation process
should not end with the not severe evaluation step.”)
Here,
the ALJ found Plaintiff suffered from three medically
determinable impairments-pancreatitis, diabetes, and a
rotator cuff impingement in his right shoulder (R. at 45)-but
concluded these impairments were not severe, either
individually or in combination, because they presented only
slight abnormalities and did not have more than a minimal
effect on Plaintiff's ability to do basic physical or
mental work activities. (R. at 50.) Given the de-minimis
standard of the step-two inquiry, the ALJ erred in concluding
Plaintiff's pancreatitis was not severe.
The
medical evidence does not clearly establish that
Plaintiff's pancreatitis is a non-severe impairment under
step two. “The record demonstrates [Plaintiff] has a
long history of pancreatitis.” (R. at 47.) Plaintiff,
38 years old at the time of his hearing (R. at 285), was
first diagnosed with pancreatitis when he was 17 (R. at 285),
and in June 2016, a computerized tomography
(“CT”) scan of Plaintiff's abdomen revealed
“peripancreatic edema adjacent to the head of the
pancreas compatible with acute pancreatitis.” (R. at
1079.) As the ALJ concluded, Plaintiff's pancreatitis
“could reasonably be expected to produce” the
nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain that Plaintiff alleged.
(R. at 47.) Nevertheless, the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff's pancreatitis was not a severe impairment,
citing discrepancies in Plaintiff's testimony,
inconsistent test results, “normal” findings
during physical examinations, conservative treatment, and
work history. (R. at 47-50.) Although these factors may
undermine Plaintiff's ...