Lori R Higgins v. Michael J Astrue
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LORI R. HIGGINS,
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. ED CV 12-02016 RZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
17
After remand from this Court, the Administrative Law Judge found that
18
Plaintiff Lori Rochelle Higgins had severe impairments consisting of hearing loss, a
19
schizoaffective disorder, and polysubstance dependence, in remission. [AR 283] However,
20
he found that she retained the residual capacity to perform light work, with certain
21
limitations. [AR 286] She could not perform any of her past relevant work [AR 292] but
22
she could perform other work which exists in the economy. [AR 293] Accordingly, she
23
was not disabled. [AR 294]
24
In this Court, Plaintiff appears to challenge the Administrative Law Judge’s
25
determinations that she was not entirely credible (Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 5:19), but
26
Plaintiff does not identify any improper determinations. Plaintiff also says that the
27
Administrative Law Judge improperly rejected Plaintiff’s statements regarding her
28
subjective symptoms (Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 6:4), but does not identify any such
1
symptoms or how they were improperly rejected. Plaintiff cites familiar law to the effect
2
that a person does not need to be completely incapacitated in order to qualify for disability
3
benefits (Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 6-8), but does not explain how the Administrative
4
Law Judge’s assessment of her activities fits within this body of law. The Administrative
5
Law Judge simply found that Plaintiff’s activities were not inconsistent with her residual
6
functional capacity. [AR 287]
7
This Court is limited to a determination as to whether the Commissioner
8
committed errors of law and whether substantial evidence supported her decision. Drouin
9
v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff has identified no errors of law,
10
and the Court has seen none, and substantial evidence backs the decision. Accordingly, the
11
Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
DATED: August 21, 2013
15
16
17
RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?