Rosalinda Higdon v. Andrew Saul

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 26, 2021
Docket8:19-cv-01622
StatusUnknown

This text of Rosalinda Higdon v. Andrew Saul (Rosalinda Higdon v. Andrew Saul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rosalinda Higdon v. Andrew Saul, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROSALINDA H.,1 ) Case No. SACV 19-1622-JPR 11 ) Plaintiff, ) 12 ) MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. ) REVERSING COMMISSIONER 13 ) ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner ) 14 of Social Security, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 I. PROCEEDINGS 18 Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner’s final decision 19 denying her applications for Social Security disability income 20 benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). The 21 parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned under 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(c). The matter is before the Court on the parties’ 23 Joint Stipulation, filed May 12, 2020, which the Court has taken 24 under submission without oral argument. For the reasons stated 25 below, the Commissioner’s decision is reversed and this action is 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in line with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the 28 recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 1 remanded for further proceedings. 2 II. BACKGROUND 3 Plaintiff was born in 1972. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 4 344.) She completed high school (AR 386) and last worked as a 5 billing clerk (AR 116-17, 386, 393-94). 6 Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on October 19 and 30, 7 2015, respectively, alleging a disability onset date of August 8 18, 2015, based on fibromyalgia, migraines, restless-leg 9 syndrome, and sleep apnea. (AR 344-50, 385-86.) After her 10 applications and requests for reconsideration were denied (AR 11 225-40, 243-60, 265-69, 271-75), she requested a hearing before 12 an Administrative Law Judge (AR 276-77). One was held on 13 February 13, 2018, at which Plaintiff, who was represented by 14 counsel, testified, as did a vocational expert. (AR 112-34.) In 15 a written decision issued May 31, 2018, the ALJ found her not 16 disabled. (AR 97-110.) She sought Appeals Council review 17 (see AR 340-43, 475-76), which was denied on July 10, 2019 (AR 1- 18 7). This action followed. 19 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the 21 Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. The ALJ’s findings and 22 decision should be upheld if they are free of legal error and 23 supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole. 24 See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Parra v. 25 Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence 26 means such evidence as a reasonable person might accept as 27 adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401; 28 Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). It 1 is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance. 2 Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1035 (citing Robbins v. Soc. Sec. 3 Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[W]hatever the 4 meaning of ‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for 5 such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 6 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). To determine whether substantial 7 evidence supports a finding, the court “must review the 8 administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that 9 supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s 10 conclusion.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 11 1998). “If the evidence can reasonably support either affirming 12 or reversing,” the court “may not substitute its judgment” for 13 the Commissioner’s. Id. at 720-21. 14 IV. THE EVALUATION OF DISABILITY 15 People are “disabled” for purposes of receiving Social 16 Security benefits if they are unable to engage in any substantial 17 gainful activity owing to a physical or mental impairment that is 18 expected to result in death or has lasted, or is expected to 19 last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 20 § 423(d)(1)(A); Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 21 1992). 22 A. The Five-Step Evaluation Process 23 The ALJ follows a five-step evaluation process to assess 24 whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 25 416.920(a)(4); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 26 1995) (as amended Apr. 9, 1996). In the first step, the 27 Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is currently 28 engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, the claimant is 1 not disabled and the claim must be denied. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 2 416.920(a)(4)(i). 3 If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful 4 activity, the second step requires the Commissioner to determine 5 whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of 6 impairments significantly limiting her ability to do basic work 7 activities; if not, the claimant is not disabled and her claim 8 must be denied. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii) & (c). 9 If the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of 10 impairments, the third step requires the Commissioner to 11 determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments 12 meets or equals an impairment in the Listing of Impairments set 13 forth at 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1; if so, 14 disability is conclusively presumed. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 15 416.920(a)(4)(iii) & (d). 16 If the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments 17 does not meet or equal an impairment in the Listing, the fourth 18 step requires the Commissioner to determine whether the claimant 19 has sufficient residual functional capacity (“RFC”)2 to perform 20 her past work; if so, she is not disabled and the claim must be 21 denied. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). The claimant 22 has the burden of proving she is unable to perform past relevant 23 work. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257. If the claimant meets that 24 burden, a prima facie case of disability is established. Id. 25 2 RFC is what a claimant can do despite existing exertional 26 and nonexertional limitations. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1); 27 see Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989). The Commissioner assesses the claimant’s RFC between steps three 28 and four. Laborin v. Berryhill, 867 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing § 416.920(a)(4)). 1 If that happens or if the claimant has no past relevant 2 work, the Commissioner bears the burden of establishing that the 3 claimant is not disabled because she can perform other 4 substantial gainful work available in the national economy, the 5 fifth and final step of the sequential analysis. 6 §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.960(b). 7 B. The ALJ’s Application of the Five-Step Process 8 At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in 9 substantial gainful activity since August 18, 2015, the alleged 10 onset date; her date last insured was December 31, 2020.

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

Related

Richardson v. Perales
402 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Berry v. Astrue
622 F.3d 1228 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Mellen v. Trustees of Boston University
504 F.3d 21 (First Circuit, 2007)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue
504 F.3d 1028 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Kim Brown-Hunter v. Carolyn W. Colvin
806 F.3d 487 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Robbins v. Social Security Administration
466 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Bernard Laborin v. Nancy Berryhill
867 F.3d 1151 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Kanika Revels v. Nancy Berryhill
874 F.3d 648 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Leopoldo Leon v. Nancy Berryhill
880 F.3d 1041 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Biestek v. Berryhill
587 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rosalinda Higdon v. Andrew Saul, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosalinda-higdon-v-andrew-saul-cacd-2021.