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.

Blumer v. Colvin

United States District Court, E.D. Washington

February 9, 2015

JASON RAY BLUMER, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

VICTOR E. BIANCHINI, Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In August of 2012, Plaintiff Jason Ray Blumer applied for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under the Social Security Act. He applied for supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits in October of 2013. The Commissioner of Social Security consolidated and denied the applications.

Plaintiff, represented by Dana Chris Madsen, Esq., commenced this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g) and 1383 (c)(3). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket No. 8).

On October 30, 2014, the Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). (Docket No. 14).

II. BACKGROUND

The procedural history may be summarized as follows:

Plaintiff alleges disability beginning August 15, 2010. (T at 12).[1] His applications were denied initially and on reconsideration and Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). On January 10, 2014, a hearing was held before ALJ Moira Ausems. (T at 29). Plaintiff appeared with an attorney and testified. (T at 42-65). The ALJ also received testimony from Dr. Richard Hutson, a medical expert (T at 34-41), and K. Diane Kramer, a vocational expert. (T at 65-74).

On February 18, 2014, the ALJ issued a written decision denying the applications for benefits and finding that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (T at 9-28). The ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision on March 25, 2014, when the Social Security Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (T at 1-6).

On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff, acting by and through his counsel, timely commenced this action by filing a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. (Docket No. 4). The Commissioner interposed an Answer on July 21, 2014. (Docket No. 11).

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on October 8, 2014. (Docket No. 13). The Commissioner moved for summary judgment on November 21, 2014. (Docket No. 15). Plaintiff filed a reply memorandum of law on December 12, 2014. (Docket No. 16).

For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's motion is denied, Plaintiff's motion is granted, and this case is remanded for further proceedings.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Sequential Evaluation Process

The Social Security Act ("the 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 twelve months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act also provides that a plaintiff shall be determined to be under a disability only if any impairments are of such severity that a plaintiff is not only unable to do previous work but cannot, considering plaintiff's age, education and work experiences, engage in any other substantial work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). Thus, the definition of disability consists of both medical and vocational components. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001).

The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Step one determines if the person is engaged in substantial gainful activities. If so, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If not, the decision maker proceeds to step two, which determines whether plaintiff has a ...


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.