United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Honorable John J. Tuchi, United States District Judge
At
issue is the denial of Plaintiff Jerry Clark's
Application for Disability Insurance Benefits 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. 13, “Pl.'s Br.”),
Defendant Social Security Administration Commissioner's
Opposition (Doc. 14, “Def.'s Br.”), and
Plaintiff's Reply (Doc. 15, “Reply”). The
Court has reviewed the briefs and Administrative Record (Doc.
10, R.) and now reverses the Administrative Law Judge's
decision (R. at 2176-92) as upheld by the Appeals Council (R.
at 2166-69).
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
first filed an application for Social Security Disability
Benefits on March 25, 2004. (R. at 2282-83.) An
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied that
claim on February 15, 2006. (R. at 2283.)
Plaintiff,
again, filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits
on June 4, 2011 for a period of disability beginning November
1, 2008. (R. at 27.) Plaintiff's claim was denied
initially on November 25, 2011 (R. at 27), and on
reconsideration on March 19, 2012 (R. at 27). Plaintiff then
testified at a hearing held before an ALJ on October 29,
2012. (R. at 27.) On January 24, 2013, after the ALJ
determined that the presumption of continuing nondisability
did not apply (R. at 27), she denied Plaintiff's
Application (R. at 40). On May 29, 2014, the Appeals Council
denied a request for review of the ALJ's decision. (R. at
4-6.) On July 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint for
judicial review. (R. at 2284.) On April 15, 2015, this Court
reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the matter for
further proceedings. (R. at 2289.)
Thereafter,
Plaintiff testified at a hearing held before an ALJ on June
5, 2017. (R. at 2176.) On September 5, 2017, the ALJ, again,
found the presumption of continuing nondisability did not
apply (R. at 2177) but denied Plaintiff's Application.
(R. at 2192.) On June 27, 2018, the Appeals Council denied a
request for review of the ALJ's decision. (R. at 2166.)
On August 22, 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: history of left shoulder surgery; status post
left knee replacement; obesity; asthma; lumbar and cervical
degenerative disc disease; right knee arthritis; marijuana
abuse disorder; alcohol abuse disorder; depressive disorder;
post-traumatic stress disorder; and cluster B traits;
hypertension; human immunodeficiency virus; mild hip
osteoarthritis; and tinnitus. (R. at 2179-80.)
Ultimately,
the ALJ determined that Plaintiff “did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR Part 404.” (R. at 2180.) The ALJ
then found that Plaintiff had the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to “perform light work as
defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b)”-with certain
exceptions-in a role such as assembler, nut sorter, or almond
blancher. (R. at 2182, 2192.)
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. At step three, the ALJ
considers whether the claimant's impairment or
combination of impairments meets or medically equals an
impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R.
Part 404. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the
claimant is automatically found to be disabled. Id.
If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. Id. At step
four, the ALJ assesses the claimant's RFC and determines
whether the claimant is still capable of performing past
relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so,
the claimant is not disabled and the inquiry ends.
Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final
step, where he determines whether the claimant can perform
any other work in the national economy based on the
claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not
disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is disabled.
Id.
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff
raises three arguments for the Court's consideration: (1)
Plaintiff's impairments medically equaled the severity of
Listing 1.03, establishing disability; (2) the ALJ erred by
rejecting the Veterans Administration determination of
disability; and (3) the ALJ erred by rejecting the opinion of
Plaintiff's treating physicians, Drs. Thomas Buenker and
Jack Hawks. (Pl.'s Br. at 4.)
A.
The ALJ Did Not Err by Finding Plaintiff's Impairments
Did Not Medically ...