Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Proctor v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

July 28, 2014

SALLIE J. PROCTOR, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES P. DONOHUE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Sallie J. Proctor appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") which denied her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33 and 1381-83f, after a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and REMANDED.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a 50 year old woman with at least a high school education. Administrative Record ("AR") at 215, 260. Her past work experience includes employment as a housekeeper, machinist, and office manager/service writer. AR at 116. Plaintiff was last gainfully employed on August 27, 2007. AR at 205.

On October 27, 2007, plaintiff filed a claim for SSI payments. On the same date, she filed an application for DIB, alleging an onset date of August 27, 2007. Id. Plaintiff asserts that she is disabled due to scoliosis, fibromyalgia, sciatica, and problems with her joints and knees. AR at 115, 205.

The Commissioner denied plaintiff's claim initially and on reconsideration. AR at 202. Plaintiff requested a hearing which took place on December 17, 2009. AR at 20-42, 202. On February 16, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision finding plaintiff not disabled and denied benefits based on a finding that plaintiff could perform a specific job existing in significant numbers in the national economy. AR at 6-19. Plaintiff's administrative appeal of the ALJ's decision was denied by the Appeals Council, AR at 1-3, making the ALJ's ruling the "final decision" of the Commissioner as that term is defined by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner's decision to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On December 22, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings in light of errors made by the ALJ in evaluating plaintiff's credibility determinations and because of errors made in determining plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC"). AR at 345-67. As a result of the remand, a hearing was held on September 18, 2012, in which an impartial vocational expert, an impartial medical expert, and plaintiff's husband appeared to testify. AR at 225-91. Subsequent to that hearing, the plaintiff had a consultative examination. The plaintiff then requested a supplemental hearing to crossexamine the consultative examining doctor. The supplemental hearing took place on January 30, 2013. AR at 292-344. On March 28, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding plaintiff not disabled and denied benefits based on a finding that plaintiff could perform a specific job existing in significant numbers in the national economy. AR at 199-222. Plaintiff's administrative appeal of the ALJ's decision was denied by the Appeals Council, making the ALJ's ruling the "final decision" of the Commissioner as that term is defined by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On July 26, 2013, plaintiff timely filed the present action challenging the Commissioner's decision. Dkts. 1-3.

II. JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision exists pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court may set aside the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits when the ALJ's findings are based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2005). "Substantial evidence" is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and resolving any other ambiguities that might exist. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). While the Court is required to examine the record as a whole, it may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). When the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the Commissioner's conclusion that must be upheld. Id.

The Court may direct an award of benefits where "the record has been fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose." McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996)). The Court may find that this occurs when:

(1) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the claimant's evidence; (2) there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination of disability can be made; and (3) it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled if he considered the claimant's evidence.

Id. at 1076-77; see also Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that erroneously rejected evidence may be credited when all three elements are met).

IV. EVALUATING DISABILITY

As the claimant, Ms. Proctor bears the burden of proving that she is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act (the "Act"). Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). The Act defines disability as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity" due to a physical or mental impairment which has lasted, or is expected to last, for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant is disabled under the Act only if her impairments are of such severity that she is unable to do her previous work, and cannot, considering her age, education, and work experience, engage in any other substantial gainful activity existing in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A); see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Commissioner has established a five step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The claimant bears the burden of proof during steps one through four. At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. Id. If a claimant is found to be disabled at any step in the sequence, the inquiry ends without the need to consider subsequent steps. Step one asks whether the claimant is presently engaged in "substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b).[1] If she is, disability benefits are denied. If she is not, the Commissioner proceeds to step two. At step two, the claimant must establish that she has one or more medically severe impairments, or combination of impairments, that limit her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant does not have such impairments, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the claimant does have a severe impairment, the Commissioner moves to step three to determine whether the impairment meets or equals any of the listed impairments described in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). A claimant whose impairment meets or equals one of the listings for the required twelve-month duration requirement is disabled. Id.

When the claimant's impairment neither meets nor equals one of the impairments listed in the regulations, the Commissioner must proceed to step four and evaluate the claimant's RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). Here, the Commissioner evaluates the physical and mental demands of the claimant's past relevant work to determine whether she can still perform that work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the claimant is able to perform her past relevant work, she is not disabled; if the opposite is true, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, taking into consideration the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099, 1100. If the Commissioner finds the claimant is unable to perform other work, then the claimant is found disabled and benefits may be awarded.

V. DECISION BELOW

On March 28, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding the following:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2011.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 27, 2007, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: Fibromyalgia Syndrome; Degenerative Disc Disease of the Lumbar and Cervical spine with Spasms and Scoliosis; and Alcohol Dependence.
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except she has no limit in her ability to sit. She must have the option to change positions from sitting to standing while remaining on task, at one hour intervals. She can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and never crawl. She can balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and climb ramps and stairs no greater than occasionally. Bilaterally, she can perform overhead reaching no greater than occasionally. She cannot have concentrated exposure to workplace hazards including unprotected heights, extreme cold, wetness, and humidity.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on XXXXX, 1963 and was 43 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date. The claimant subsequently changed age category to closely approaching advanced age.[2]
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English.
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is "not disabled, " whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills.
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from August 27, 2007, through the date of this decision.

AR at 205-17.

VI. ISSUES ON APPEAL

The principal issues on appeal are:

1. Whether the ALJ's credibility finding was ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.