Parker D. v. Saul

Parker D., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01818-W-AHG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

January 13, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING JOINT MOTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

[ECF No. 19]

This matter comes before the Court for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on the parties' Joint Motion for Judicial Review. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff Parker D. ("Plaintiff") appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff brings his appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

After a thorough review of the parties' submissions, the administrative record, and applicable law, the undersigned recommends that the Court REVERSE the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and REMAND the case for further administrative proceedings.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging disability beginning December 15, 2013. See Certified Administrative Record ("AR") 65, 169, ECF No. 14-5. Plaintiff's application was denied initially on March 17, 2016, and again upon reconsideration. AR 65-77, 79-93. Plaintiff timely requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") and a hearing was held on March 9, 2018. AR 42-64, 112-13.

On September 12, 2018, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, finding Plaintiff was not disabled and denying disability insurance benefits. AR 20-35. Plaintiff filed a request for review, but the Appeals Council denied review on July 26, 2019 (AR 9-14), making the ALJ's opinion the final decision of the Commissioner. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

Plaintiff filed this action on September 20, 2019, against Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant"), seeking judicial review of the denial of his application for social security disability insurance benefits. ECF No. 1. Defendant filed the Administrative Record on January 14, 2020. ECF No. 14.

II. SUMMARY OF ALJ'S FINDINGS

The ALJ first determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2016. AR 23, 25. Accordingly, the relevant period for the disability analysis is the alleged disability onset date of December 15, 2013, through the date last insured of September 30, 2016. Thereafter, the ALJ performed the required five-step sequential evaluation process governing disability claims under the Social Security Act: (1) whether the claimant is involved in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that is "severe"; (3) whether the claimant's impairments meet or equal one of the listed impairments; (4) whether the claimant can still perform his past relevant work, given his residual functional capacity, despite his impairment(s); and (5) if the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, whether the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The five steps areaddressed in order, but the ALJ is not always required to go through all five steps of the process. Specifically, an affirmative answer at steps one or four (whether the claimant currently is engaged in substantial gainful activity or can perform past relative work), or a negative answer at step two (whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that is severe), immediately would lead to a finding of non-disability, and the analysis would stop there. Conversely, an affirmative answer at step three (whether the claimant's impairments meet a listing) immediately would lead to a finding of disability, also ending the analysis. Id.

At step one of the five-step process, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity ("SGA") from his alleged disability onset date of December 15, 2013, through his date last insured of September 30, 2016. AR 25. SGA is defined as work activity that is both substantial and gainful. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572. "Substantial work activity is work activity that involves doing significant physical or mental activities." C.F.R. § 404.1572(a). "Gainful work activity is work activity that you do for pay or profit." C.F.R. § 404.1572(b).

At step two, the ALJ must determine whether Plaintiff has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that is "severe." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). A "severe" impairment is one that significantly limits physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Id. The ALJ concluded the Plaintiff had the following "severe" impairments: degenerative disc diseases, tremor, headache, degenerative joint disease, chronic pain, depression and anxiety. AR 25.

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether Plaintiff's impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I ("the listings"). The listings describe impairments that the Social Security Administration ("SSA") considers "severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity, regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a). A claimant's impairment may also be considered "medically equivalent" to a listed impairment if it is at least equal inseverity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(a). If a claimant's impairments meet or medically equal any of the listings, the ALJ will find the claimant disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Here, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of any of the listings. AR 25.

Before considering whether Plaintiff can perform past relevant work at step four, the ALJ first must determine Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC"). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). A claimant's RFC is ". . . the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); Laborin v. Berryhill, 867 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2017). A claimant's RFC is based on all relevant evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

Based on his evaluation of the medical and opinion evidence in the record, the ALJ determined that, through the date last insured, Plaintiff had the following RFC:

To perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). Specifically, the claimant can lift and/or carry ten pounds frequently, twenty pounds occasionally; he can stand and/or walk for four hours out of an eight-hour workday; he can sit for six hours out of an eight-hour workday; he can frequently reach, handle and finger; he can occasionally reach over head, and do postural activities except he is not to climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; he is to avoid all exposure to hazards; he can have occasional interaction with coworkers or supervisors; he is to have no contact with the public; and he is limited to simple repetitive tasks.

AR 28. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ considered all symptoms of Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments "and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence," based on the requirements provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017) (providing guidance on how the Agency evaluates statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms in disability claims). AR 28.

/// The ALJ further concluded that, although Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments reasonably could be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, "the claimant's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record[.]" AR 29. Specifically, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's description of symptoms related to his allegedly disabling conditions: "chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, depression, lumbar spine impairment, social and generalized anxiety disorder, and chronic pain." AR 28. He noted Plaintiff's testimony that he stopped working due to "weight loss, anxiety, and sleep problems" and claim that in the months after he stopped working, Plaintiff stayed in bed 90% of the time due to extreme fatigue. Id. The ALJ further considered testimony that Plaintiff's symptoms were at their worst in 2014 and have improved with medication, but that Plaintiff still spends a great deal of time in bed due to back pain. Id. He noted that Plaintiff "described tremors in his hands that medication has helped improve as well with memory." Id. Finally, the ALJ highlighted Plaintiff's statements that dietary changes and meditation helped his symptoms, but that his worst symptoms—fatigue, lower back aches, difficulty thinking clearly, and headaches—remained. Id.

Despite these alleged impairments, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff "has engaged in a somewhat normal level of daily activity and interaction." AR 29. He highlighted that Plaintiff admitted engaging in activities of daily living such as:

he takes daily walks, watches television, visits friends to talk and play games, can play tennis thirty to sixty minutes, spends approximately 30 minutes at a time on a computer, and runs about thirty minutes a day. In a function report, the claimant acknowledged he lives with family, has no problem with personal care, prepares meals, does laundry, washes dishes, does light cleaning, drives, can go out alone, shops in stores and on the computer, can handle his finances, goes to friend's houses once a week, goes to the movies, and can follow instructions with focus (Exhibits 4E and 6E). He told Dr. Ibraheem he runs errands, manages his own money, and has good

...