United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, INTER ALIA
R. SUKO Senior United States District Judge
THE COURT are the Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 13) and the Defendant's Motion For Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 15).
Jo Rumple, Plaintiff, applied for Title II Disability
Insurance benefits (DIB) and Title XVI Supplemental Security
Income benefits (SSI) on June 18, 2012. The applications were
denied initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff timely
requested a hearing which was held on June 11, 2014 before
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Moira Ausems. Plaintiff
testified at the hearing, as did Vocational Expert (VE)
Thomas A. Polsin. On September 5, 2014, the ALJ issued a
decision finding the Plaintiff not disabled. The Appeals
Council denied a request for review of the ALJ's
decision, making that decision the Commissioner's final
decision subject to judicial review. The Commissioner's
final decision is appealable to district court pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §405(g) and §1383(c)(3).
facts have been presented in the administrative transcript,
the ALJ's decision, the Plaintiff's and
Defendant's briefs, and will only be summarized here. At
the time of the administrative hearing, Plaintiff was 41
years old. He has past relevant work experience as a material
handler, a child monitor, a laminator, a siding applicator, a
construction worker, and as a housekeeper cleaner. Plaintiff
alleges disability since November 19, 2010, on which date he
was 38 years old. His date last insured for Title II benefits
was December 31, 2015.
[Commissioner's] determination that a claimant is not
disabled will be upheld if the findings of fact are supported
by substantial evidence...." Delgado v.
Heckler, 722 F.2d 570, 572 (9th Cir. 1983). Substantial
evidence is more than a mere scintilla, Sorenson v.
Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th Cir. 1975),
but less than a preponderance. McAllister v.
Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 601-602 (9th Cir. 1989);
Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). "It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct.
1420 (1971). "[S]uch inferences and conclusions as the
[Commissioner] may reasonably draw from the evidence"
will also be upheld. Beane v. Richardson, 457 F.2d
758, 759 (9th Cir. 1972); Mark v. Celebrezze, 348
F.2d 289, 293 (9th Cir. 1965). On review, the court considers
the record as a whole, not just the evidence supporting the
decision of the Commissioner. Weetman v. Sullivan,
877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1989); Thompson v.
Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 939 (9th Cir. 1982).
the role of the trier of fact, not this court to resolve
conflicts in evidence. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 400.
If evidence supports more than one rational interpretation,
the court must uphold the decision of the ALJ. Allen v.
Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984).
decision supported by substantial evidence will still be set
aside if the proper legal standards were not applied in
weighing the evidence and making the decision. Brawner v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 432,
433 (9th Cir. 1987).
argues the ALJ erred in: 1) evaluating the medical opinions
of record; and 2) discounting Plaintiff's credibility.