United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF BENEFITS
S. LASNIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Bailey N. appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration
(“Commissioner”), which denied her application
for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C.
§§1381-83f, after a hearing before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”). For the reasons
set forth below, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED
and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
is a 28-year-old woman with a high school education.
See Admin. Record (“AR”) at 48, 69.
Plaintiff applied for benefits, alleging disability as of
September 7, 2007. Id. at 69, 155-60. Her claims
were denied on initial administrative review and on
reconsideration. Id. at 68-88. On September 13,
2017, ALJ Gerald Hill held a hearing, at which Plaintiff and
a vocational expert testified. Id. at 30-67.
March 1, 2018, ALJ Hill issued a decision denying
Plaintiff's claim for benefits. Id. at 15-22.
The Appeals Council denied review. Id. at 1-3.
Plaintiff then sought review before this Court. Compl. (Dkt.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), the Court may set aside the
Commissioner's denial of social security benefits when
the ALJ's findings are based on legal error or not
supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012).
“Substantial evidence” is more than a scintilla,
less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401
(1971); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th
Cir. 1989). The ALJ is responsible for determining
credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and
resolving any other ambiguities that might exist. Andrews
v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). While
the Court is required to examine the record as a whole, it
may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment
for that of the Commissioner. Thomas v. Barnhart,
278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). When the evidence is
susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is
the Commissioner's conclusion that must be upheld.
bears the burden of proving that she is disabled within the
meaning of the Act. Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111,
1113 (9th Cir. 1999). The Act defines disability as the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity” due to a physical or mental impairment that
has lasted, or is expected to last, for a continuous period
of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. §1382c(a)(3)(A). A
claimant is disabled under the Act only if her impairments
are of such severity that she is unable to do her previous
work, and cannot, considering her age, education, and work
experience, engage in any other substantial gainful activity
existing in the national economy. 42 U.S.C.
§1382c(a)(3)(B); see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180
F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999).
Commissioner has established a five-step sequential
evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is
disabled within the meaning of the Act. See 20
C.F.R. §416.920. The claimant bears the burden of proof
during steps one through four. Valentine v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009). At
step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner.
Id. If a claimant is found to be disabled at any
step in the sequence, the inquiry ends without the need to
consider subsequent steps. Step one asks whether the claimant
is presently engaged in “substantial gainful
activity.” 20 C.F.R. §416.920(b). If she is,
disability benefits are denied. If she is not, the
Commissioner proceeds to step two. Id. At step two,
the claimant must establish that she has one or more
medically severe impairments, or combination of impairments,
that limit her physical or mental ability to do basic work
activities. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(c). If the claimant does
not have such impairments, she is not disabled. Id.
If the claimant does have a severe impairment, the
Commissioner moves to step three to determine whether the
impairment meets or equals any of the listed impairments
described in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(d). A
claimant whose impairment meets or equals one of the listings
for the required 12-month duration is disabled. Id.
the claimant's impairment neither meets nor equals one of
the impairments listed in the regulations, the Commissioner
must proceed to step four and evaluate the claimant's
residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R.
§416.920(e). Here, the Commissioner evaluates the
physical and mental demands of the claimant's past
relevant work to determine whether she can still perform that
work. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(f). If the claimant is able to
perform her past relevant work, she is not disabled; if the
opposite is true, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner
at step five to show that the claimant can perform other work
that exists in significant numbers in the national economy,
taking into consideration the claimant's RFC, age,
education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(g);
Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1099-1100. If the Commissioner
finds the claimant is unable to perform other work, then the
claimant is found disabled and benefits may be awarded. 20
March 1, 2018, ALJ Hill issued a decision finding the
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since January 8, 2016, the application date.