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.

Mangum v. Berryhill

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

April 16, 2018

SANDRA MANGUM, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner of Social Security for Operations, Defendant.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

          J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge

         This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13 (see also Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 2). This matter has been fully briefed. See Dkt. 15, 20, 21.

         After considering and reviewing the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not commit harmful legal error during the evaluation of plaintiff's Social Security applications. Although plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred when evaluating plaintiff's allegations and testimony, there are many inconsistencies and conflicts between plaintiff's testimony at her hearing about her limitations, and the statements and reports throughout the medical record regarding her activities and abilities.

         Similarly, although plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred when evaluating the medical evidence, when providing their medical opinions, Drs. Lindner and Chalstrom both clearly relied heavily on plaintiff's subjective reports - subjective reports which the ALJ properly rejected.

         Therefore, this matter is affirmed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, SANDRA MANGUM, was born in 1974 and was 39 years old on the alleged date of disability onset of June 15, 2013. See AR. 213-19, 220-27. Plaintiff completed the ninth grade in school. AR. 40. Plaintiff has work experience as a cashier, deli worker, customer service worker and office worker. AR. 46-49, 268-79.

         According to the ALJ, plaintiff has at least the severe impairments of “obesity, affective disorder, and anxiety disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).” AR. 20.

         At the time of the hearing, plaintiff was living in a house with her husband and four children. AR. 41.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423 (Title II) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a) (Title XVI) of the Social Security Act were denied initially and following reconsideration. See AR. 83, 84, 111, 112. Plaintiff's requested hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Ilene Sloan (“the ALJ”) on November 16, 2015. See AR. 34-82. On January 6, 2016, the ALJ issued a written decision in which she concluded that plaintiff was not disabled pursuant to the Social Security Act. See AR. 14-33.

         In plaintiff's Opening Brief, plaintiff raises the following issues: (1) The ALJ erred in her consideration of plaintiff's allegations; (2) The ALJ erred in her weighing of the medical opinions; and (3) The ALJ erred in her consideration of the lay witness testimony. See Dkt. 15, p. 1.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court may set aside the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits if 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 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1999)).

         DISCUSSION

         (1) Did the ALJ err in her consideration of plaintiff's allegations?

         Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred when failing to credit fully her allegations and testimony. Dkt. 15, pp. 2-11. Defendant ...


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.