Gustafson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

CourtDistrict Court, D. Oregon
DecidedJanuary 12, 2024
Docket3:22-cv-00856
StatusUnknown

This text of Gustafson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration (Gustafson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gustafson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, (D. Or. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RONALD G.,1 Case No. 3:22-cv-00856-SB

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge. Ronald G. (“Plaintiff”) brings this appeal challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his applications for a period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c), and the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons explained below, the Court affirms the

1 In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party in this case. Commissioner’s decision because it is free of harmful legal error and supported by substantial evidence. STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court may set aside a denial of benefits only if the Commissioner’s findings are “not supported by substantial evidence or based on legal error.” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). Substantial evidence is defined as “more than a mere scintilla [of evidence] but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). The district court “cannot affirm the Commissioner’s decision ‘simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999)). Instead, the district court must consider the entire record, weighing the evidence that both supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusions. Id. Where the record as a whole can support either the grant or

denial of Social Security benefits, the district court “may not substitute [its] judgment for the [Commissioner’s].” Bray, 554 F.3d at 1222 (quoting Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007)). BACKGROUND I. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS Plaintiff was born in October 1966, making him fifty years old on October 27, 2016, his amended alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 6-7, 106, 118, 133, 146.) Plaintiff is a high school graduate who has past relevant work experience as a painter and house repairer. (Id. at 36, 47, 199.) In his applications for benefits, Plaintiff alleges disability due primarily to neuropathy in his feet, shoulder and knee pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and tendonitis. (Id. at 107, 119, 134, 147.) The Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s applications initially and upon reconsideration, and on January 15, 2019, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Id. at 164.) On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff, a vocational expert (“VE”), and a medical expert,

Joselyn Bailey, M.D. (“Dr. Bailey”), appeared and testified at a hearing before the ALJ. (Id. at 45-75.) On December 3, 2019, the ALJ issued a written decision denying Plaintiff’s applications. (Id. at 164-72.) On August 28, 2020, the Appeals Council granted Plaintiff’s request to review the ALJ’s decision. (Id. at 178-81, 187.) The Appeals Council vacated the ALJ’s decision because the ALJ failed to address “all of [Dr. Bailey’s] assessed limitations,” and instructed the ALJ on remand to “[g]ive further consideration to Dr. Bailey’s opinion” and “[o]btain supplemental evidence from a [VE].” (Id. at 178-81, 187.) On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff, a VE, and a medical expert, Minh Vu, M.D. (“Dr. Vu”), appeared and testified at a second hearing before a new ALJ. (Id. at 14-

42.) On March 24, 2021, the ALJ issued a written decision denying Plaintiff’s applications. (Id. at 187-201.) On January 28, 2022, the Appeals Council granted Plaintiff’s request to review the ALJ’s decision. (Id. at 375-79.) The Appeals Council informed Plaintiff that it planned to issue an unfavorable decision adopting most of the ALJ’s findings, but it proposed finding Dr. Bailey’s opinion unpersuasive on other grounds because the ALJ “did not properly evaluate” Dr. Bailey’s opinion. (Id.) After receiving “no statement or additional evidence” from Plaintiff regarding its proposal, the Appeals Council issued an unfavorable decision on April 20, 2022, adopting most of the ALJ’s findings and finding Dr. Bailey’s opinion unpersuasive for reasons different than those stated in the ALJ’s decision. (Id. at 4-7.) Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of that decision. II. THE SEQUENTIAL PROCESS A claimant is considered disabled if he or she is unable to “engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment

which . . . has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than [twelve] months[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). “Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential process for determining whether an applicant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.” Keyser v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2011). Those five steps are: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant can return to any past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. at 724-25. The claimant bears the burden of proof for the first four steps. See Bustamante v.

Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2001). If the claimant fails to meet the burden at any of those steps, the claimant is not disabled. See id. at 954. The Commissioner bears the burden of proof at step five, where the Commissioner must show the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, “taking into consideration the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1100. If the Commissioner fails to meet this burden, the claimant is disabled. See Bustamante, 262 F.3d at 954. /// /// III. THE ALJ’S DECISION The ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation process to determine if Plaintiff is disabled. (Tr. 187-201.) At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 27, 2016, his amended alleged disability onset date. (Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Leonard Nollen v. Michael Astrue
473 F. App'x 780 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Tommasetti v. Astrue
533 F.3d 1035 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue
504 F.3d 1028 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Karen Garrison v. Carolyn W. Colvin
759 F.3d 995 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Jasim Ghanim v. Carolyn W. Colvin
763 F.3d 1154 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Cindy Miner v. Carolyn Colvin
609 F. App'x 454 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Robbins v. Social Security Administration
466 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Carolyn Hanes v. Carolyn Colvin
651 F. App'x 703 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Jeana Rawa v. Carolyn Colvin
672 F. App'x 664 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Rachel Stout v. Nancy Berryhill
696 F. App'x 838 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Kanika Revels v. Nancy Berryhill
874 F.3d 648 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Elijah Sims, Jr. v. Nancy Berryhill
704 F. App'x 703 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Biestek v. Berryhill
587 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gustafson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gustafson-v-commissioner-social-security-administration-ord-2024.