Keeney v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER - The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case and enter judgment. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 9/17/18. (GMP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Amy Laverne Keeney,

10

Plaintiff,

11

Commissioner
Administration,

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-01108-PHX-DLR

13
14

of

Social

Security

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff appeals the denial of her applications for a period of disability, disability

17

insurance benefits, and Supplemental Security Income, in which she alleged that she

18

became disabled as of October 1, 2009.

19

evaluation process outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), the Administrative Law Judge

20

(“ALJ”) concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled because she retained the residual

21

functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform medium work (with some exceptions), and jobs

22

exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform in light of

23

her RFC, age, education, and work experience. (A.R. 15-25.)

24

After following the five-step sequential

When considering an appeal from the denial of an application for disability

25

insurance benefits, the Court’s review is limited.

The Court cannot “manufacture

26

arguments” for Plaintiff, nor can it “consider any claims that were not actually argued in

27

[Plaintiff’s] opening brief.” Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929

28

(9th Cir. 2003). The Court “review[s] only issues which are argued specifically and

1

distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” Id. Moreover, the Court is not free to consider

2

Plaintiff’s disability applications anew or to otherwise determine whether she is disabled.

3

Instead, the Court is limited to reviewing the ALJ’s decision to determine whether it

4

“contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 495

5

F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than

6

a preponderance, and “such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as

7

adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. Stated differently, if the ALJ follows the correct

8

legal standards and supports his decision with a reasonable interpretation of the evidence,

9

the Court cannot reverse his decision simply because it would weigh the evidence

10

differently.

11

After reviewing Plaintiff’s opening brief (Doc. 20), the Court finds that Plaintiff

12

has raised no specific objections to the ALJ’s decision. Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s

13

weighing of the evidence and asks the Court to find that she is “disabled enough to

14

received social security benefits.” (Doc. 20 at 2.) But Plaintiff does not identify any

15

legal errors in the ALJ’s decision, nor does she explain how the ALJ’s decision is

16

unsupported by substantial evidence. Accordingly,

17
18
19

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk
of the Court shall terminate this case and enter judgment.
Dated this 17th day of September, 2018.

20
21
22
23
24

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-