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.

Harriet R. v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

October 16, 2019

HARRIET R., Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING DEFENDANT'S DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS

          Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff has brought this matter for judicial review of defendant's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits.

         The parties have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73; Local Rule MJR 13. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned agrees that the ALJ erred and the ALJ's decision is reversed and remanded for an award of benefits.

         I. ISSUES FOR REVEW

         1. Did the ALJ err in finding that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work at step four?

         2. Did the ALJ err in evaluating Plaintiff's symptom testimony?

         3. Did the ALJ properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence?

         4. Did the ALJ err in discounting lay witness testimony?

         II. BACKGROUND

         On October 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits, alleging a disability onset date of September 7, 2015. AR 17, 161-67. Plaintiff's application was denied upon initial administrative review and on reconsideration. AR 17, 98-100. A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Timothy Mangrum on August 10, 2017. AR 37-65. In a decision dated March 22, 2018, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. AR 14-32. The Social Security Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on December 17, 2018. AR 3-8.

         On January 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of the ALJ's written decision. Dkt. 4. Plaintiff asks this Court to reverse the ALJ's decision and to remand this case for an award of benefits. Dkt. 10, pp. 14-15.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Court will uphold an ALJ's decision unless: (1) the decision is based on legal error; or (2) the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017). Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). This requires “more than a mere scintilla” of evidence. Id.

         The Court must consider the administrative record as a whole. Garrison v. Colvin,759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court is required to weigh both the evidence that supports, and evidence that does not support, the ALJ's conclusion. Id. The Court may not affirm the decision of the ALJ for a reason upon which the ALJ did not rely. Id. ...


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.