United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, INTER ALIA
R. SUKO, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT are the Plaintiffs Motion For Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 13) and the Defendant's Motion For
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14).
Marie Garner, Plaintiff, applied for Title II Social Security
Disability Insurance benefits (SSDI) and for Title XVI
Supplemental Security Income benefits (SSI) on September 3,
2013. The applications were denied initially and on
reconsideration. Plaintiff timely requested a hearing which
was held on February 3, 2016 before Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Jesse Shumway. Plaintiff testified at the hearing, as
did Medical Expert (ME) Nancy Winfrey and Vocational Expert
(VE) Daniel McKinney. On March 21, 2016, 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 Plaintiffs and Defendant's
briefs, and will only be summarized here. Plaintiff has an
11th grade education and past relevant work
experience as a cook helper, cashier and waitress. She
alleges disability since March 1, 2011, on which date she was
28 years old.
[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 (9thCir. \912);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. Browner v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 432,
433 (9th Cir. 1987).
argues the ALJ erred in: 1) improperly assessing the medical
opinion evidence; and 2) failing to provide specific, clear
and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiffs testimony
regarding her symptoms and limitations.