Derryberry v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/22/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment 14 is DENIED; Defendant's Cross-MOTION for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15 ) is GRANTED; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HEATHER M. DERRYBERRY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-CV-0465-CMK
vs.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
15
Defendant.
16
/
17
18
Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action under
19
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.
20
Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding
21
judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending
22
before the court are plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) and defendant’s cross-
23
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15).
24
///
25
///
26
///
1
1
2
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff applied for social security benefits on June 28, 2011. In the application,
3
plaintiff claims that disability began on January 1, 2006. Plaintiff’s claim was initially denied.
4
Following denial of reconsideration, plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, which was
5
held on March 25, 2013, before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Barry H. Jenkins. In an
6
August 14, 2013, decision, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is not disabled based on the
7
following relevant findings:
8
1.
The claimant has the following severe impairment(s): anxiety disorder,
bipolar disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning;
2.
The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments
that meets or medically equals an impairment listed in the regulations;
3.
The claimant has the following residual functional capacity: she can
perform a full range of work at all exertional levels except she is limited to
simple tasks with only occasional interaction with the public and coworkers, and she may not perform production rate pace work; and
4.
The claimant can perform her past relevant work.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
After the Appeals Council declined review on January 2, 2015, this appeal followed.
16
17
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
18
The court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision to determine whether it is:
19
(1) based on proper legal standards; and (2) supported by substantial evidence in the record as a
20
whole. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). “Substantial evidence” is
21
more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. See Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521
22
(9th Cir. 1996). It is “. . . such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
23
support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971). The record as a whole,
24
including both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusion, must
25
be considered and weighed. See Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1986); Jones
26
v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). The court may not affirm the Commissioner’s
2
1
decision simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. See Hammock v.
2
Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). If substantial evidence supports the administrative
3
findings, or if there is conflicting evidence supporting a particular finding, the finding of the
4
Commissioner is conclusive. See Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 1987).
5
Therefore, where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of
6
which supports the Commissioner’s decision, the decision must be affirmed, see Thomas v.
7
Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002), and may be set aside only if an improper legal
8
standard was applied in weighing the evidence, see Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th
9
Cir. 1988).
10
11
12
III. DISCUSSION
In her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to
13
consider whether her intellectual impairment meets or medically equals Listing 12.05. The
14
Social Security Regulations “Listing of Impairments” is comprised of impairments to fifteen
15
categories of body systems that are severe enough to preclude a person from performing gainful
16
activity. Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183-84 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).
17
Conditions described in the listings are considered so severe that they are irrebuttably presumed
18
disabling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). In meeting or equaling a listing, all the requirements of that
19
listing must be met. Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1550 (9th Cir. 1985).
20
As to the listings, the ALJ stated:
21
The severity of the claimant’s mental impairments, considered singly and
in combination, do not meet or medically equal the criteria of listing 12.04
and 12.06. In making this finding, I have considered whether the
“paragraph B” criteria are satisfied. To satisfy the “paragraph B” criteria,
the mental impairments must result in at least two of the following:
marked restriction of activities of daily living; marked difficulties in
maintaining social functioning; marked difficulties in maintaining
concentration, persistence, or pace; or repeated episodes of
decompensation, each of extended duration. A marked limitation means
more than moderate but less than extreme. Repeated episodes of
decompensation, each of extended duration, means three episodes within 1
22
23
24
25
26
3
1
year, or an average of once every 4 months, each lasting for at least 2
weeks.
2
3
4
The greater weight of the evidence reveals that the claimant has mild
restriction in activities of daily living, mild difficulties in social
functioning, moderate difficulties with regard to concentration,
persistence, or pace, and no episodes of decompensation, which have been
of extended duration.
5
6
7
8
9
She reported that she is able to bathe and dress herself. She cleans, does
laundry, and washes the dishes. She likes to swim. She watches
television. She attends church. She has friends who come over sometimes
(Exhibits 2F/3, 6F/6).
Because the claimant’s mental impairments do not cause at least two
“marked” limitations or one “marked” limitation and “repeated” episodes
of decompensation, each of extended duration, the “paragraph B” criteria
are not satisfied.
10
11
12
13
14
15
I have also considered whether the “paragraph C” criteria are satisfied. In
this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the “paragraph C”
criteria. The claimant’s mental impairments have not resulted in repeated
episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration; a residual disease
process that has resulted in such marginal adjustment that even a minimal
increase in mental demands or change in the environment would be
predicted to cause the individual to decompensate; current history of 1 or
more years’ inability to function outside a highly supportive living
arrangement, with an indication of continued need for such an
arrangement; or complete inability to function independently outside the
area of one’s home.
16
17
18
The ALJ did not specifically consider Listing 12.05.
According to plaintiff, she meets the requirements of Listing 12.05C because she
19
has deficits in adaptive functioning, she has a full-scale IQ of 67, and she has other significant
20
mental impairments (i.e., anxiety and bipolar disorder). As defendant notes, however, Listing
21
12.05C also requires evidence that deficits in adaptive functioning manifested before age 22.
22
Plaintiff has presented no evidence of deficits in adaptive functioning prior to age 22. As
23
defendant also notes, the “other impairment” required by the listing must impose additional and
24
significant work-related limitations. Plaintiff has not presented evidence that her other mental
25
impairments (anxiety and bipolar disorder) impose such restrictions.
26
4
1
2
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s final
3
decision is based on substantial evidence and proper legal analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
4
ORDERED that:
5
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) is denied;
6
2.
Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is granted; and
7
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.
8
9
10
11
DATED: September 22, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
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?