Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedNovember 4, 2019
Docket2:17-cv-04793-SMB
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2019).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ivy Johnson, No. CV-17-04793-PHX-SMB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14

15 16 At issue is the denial of Plaintiff Ivy Johnson’s Application for Disability Insurance 17 Benefits by the Social Security Administration (SSA) under the Social Security Act. 18 Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1), and an Amended Complaint (Doc. 14), with this Court 19 seeking judicial review of that denial, and the Court now addresses Plaintiff’s Opening 20 Brief (Doc. 24, Pl. Br.), Defendant Social Security Administration Commissioner’s 21 Response Brief (Doc. 28, Def. Br.), and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (Doc. 29, Reply). The Court 22 has reviewed the briefs and Administrative Record (Doc. 18, R.) and now affirms the 23 Administrative Law Judge’s decision (R. at 15–33) as upheld by the Appeals Council (R. 24 at 1–6). 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits on February 21, 2012 27 for a period of disability beginning on February 17, 2011. (R. at 67.) On January 23, 2013, 28 Plaintiff appeared and testified before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (R. at 99.) The 1 ALJ denied her claim but the Appeals Council remanded the case for a reassessment of 2 Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (RFC) showing full consideration of Plaintiff’s 3 mental impairments. (R. at 119.) Plaintiff’s second hearing before the ALJ was on October 4 18, 2016. (R. at 15.) The same ALJ denied her claim on January 4, 2017. On November 5 17, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s Request for Review of the ALJ’s decision. 6 (R. at 1.) 7 The Court has reviewed the medical evidence in its entirety and finds it unnecessary 8 to provide a complete summary here. The pertinent medical evidence will be discussed in 9 addressing the issues raised by the parties. At the second hearing, upon considering the 10 medical records and opinions, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s disability based on the 11 following severe impairments: cardiac arrhythmia with pacemaker implant and 12 hypertension. (R. at 20.) Unlike at the first hearing, the ALJ did not consider Plaintiff’s 13 affective disorder a severe impairment. (R. at 20, 101.) 14 Ultimately, the ALJ evaluated the medical evidence and testimony and concluded 15 that Plaintiff is not disabled. (R. at 27.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff “does not have 16 an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity 17 of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” (R. at 22.) 18 The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the RFC to perform “light work,” except that she would 19 be prevented from “climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds, frequent climbing ramps and stairs 20 and frequent balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling.” (R. at 22.) 21 Furthermore, the ALJ found that Plaintiff should not be exposed to “dust, fumes, gases, or 22 other respiratory irritants,” and that she has “the ability to understand, remember and carry 23 out detailed instructions.” (R. at 22.) Consequently, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff “was 24 capable of performing past relevant work as a social worker and social worker (mental).” 25 (R. at 26.) 26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 In determining whether to reverse an ALJ’s decision, the district court reviews only 28 those issues raised by the party challenging the decision. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 1 517 n.13 (9th Cir. 2001). The court may set aside the Commissioner’s disability 2 determination only if the determination is not supported by substantial evidence or is based 3 on legal error. Orn, 495 F.3d at 630. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less 4 than a preponderance; it is relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as 5 adequate to support a conclusion considering the record as a whole. Id. To determine 6 whether substantial evidence supports a decision, the court must consider the record as a 7 whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a “specific quantum of supporting evidence.” 8 Id. Generally, “[w]here the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, 9 one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas 10 v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 11 To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Act, the ALJ 12 follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears the burden of 13 proof on the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. Tackett 14 v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). At the first step, the ALJ determines whether 15 the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. 16 § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. At step 17 two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable 18 physical or mental impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not 19 disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. At step three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s 20 impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed 21 in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Part 404. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, 22 the claimant is automatically found to be disabled. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. 23 Id. At step four, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and determines whether the claimant 24 is still capable of performing past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the 25 claimant is not disabled, and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and 26 final step, where she determines whether the claimant can perform any other work in the 27 national economy based on the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 28 1 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is 2 disabled. Id. 3 III. ANALYSIS 4 Plaintiff raises three arguments for the Court’s consideration. (Pl. Br. at 1.) First, 5 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by giving minimal weight to the opinion of Dr. Kevin 6 Berman, Plaintiff’s treating cardiologist. (Pl. Br. at 1.) Next, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ 7 improperly weighed medical opinions concerning Plaintiff’s mental impairments. (Pl. Br. 8 at 1.) Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not properly credit Plaintiff’s testimony 9 regarding the severity of her symptoms. (Pl. Br. at 1.) The Court disagrees with all three of 10 Plaintiff’s arguments. To the extent the ALJ erred, such error was harmless because 11 substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s non-disability determination. 12 A. The ALJ did not err by giving Dr.

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

Related

Molina v. Astrue
674 F.3d 1104 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Sammy Parker Flynt
15 F.3d 1002 (Eleventh Circuit, 1994)
Harold Hall v. City of Los Angeles
697 F.3d 1059 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Tommasetti v. Astrue
533 F.3d 1035 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Casey
825 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2016)
Smolen v. Chater
80 F.3d 1273 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Lester v. Chater
81 F.3d 821 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Tackett v. Apfel
180 F.3d 1094 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Trevizo v. Berryhill
871 F.3d 664 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Pitzer v. Sullivan
908 F.2d 502 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Bunnell v. Sullivan
947 F.2d 341 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2019.