Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mendez v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 12, 2017

JOSE MUNGUIA MENDEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4. Before the court is plaintiffs motion for reversal and/or remand (ECF No. 13), defendant's cross-motion to affirm (ECF No. 16), and plaintiffs reply (ECF No. 17). For the reasons set forth herein, the court recommends that plaintiffs motion be denied, and defendant's cross-motion be granted.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On June 6, 2013, Jose Munguia Mendez ("plaintiff) protectively filed for a period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, alleging a disability onset date of June 30, 2012. (Administrative Record ("AR") 265-271, 272-278.) The Social Security Administration denied plaintiffs application in the first instance on December 17, 2013, and upon reconsideration on March 31, 2014. (Id. at 149-152, 156-158.)

         On September 15, 2015, plaintiff and his attorney appeared at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Janice Shave. (Id. at 53-84.) The ALJ issued a written decision on November 17, 2015, finding that plaintiff had not been disabled at any time between the alleged onset date and the date of the decision. (Id. at 30-51.) Plaintiff appealed, and the Appeals Council denied review on June 29, 2016. (Id. at 1-7.) Accordingly, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner ("defendant").

         Having exhausted all administrative remedies, plaintiff filed a complaint for judicial review on August 30, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) In his motion for remand or reversal, plaintiff contends that (1) the ALJ's residual functional capacity ("RFC") assessment lacked the support of substantial evidence, and (2) the ALJ's credibility determination lacked the support of substantial evidence. (ECF No. 13 at 6-12.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The initial burden of proof to establish disability in a claim for SSDI benefits rests upon the claimant. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). To satisfy this burden, the claimant must demonstrate an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected ... to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months...." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

         This court has jurisdiction to review an ALJ's decision to deny a claim for benefits after the claimant has exhausted all administrative remedies. See Brewes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 2012). The court must affirm the ALJ's decision unless it rests on legal error or is unsupported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ("The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive."). The substantial evidence standard is not onerous. It is "more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation omitted).

         Although the ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence in the record, she cannot ignore or omit evidence that is significant or probative. Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ's discussion must adequately explain the decision in light of such evidence. "The ALJ, not the district court, is required to provide specific reasons for rejecting [the evidence.]" Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2006) (specifically discussing rejection of lay testimony). The district court's review is thus constrained to the reasons asserted by the ALJ. Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003).

         To determine whether substantial evidence exists, the court must look at the record as a whole, considering both evidence that supports and undermines the ALJ's decision; it "may not affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence." Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). Where "the evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the decision of the ALJ must be upheld." Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation omitted). The ALJ alone is responsible for determining credibility and resolving ambiguities. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1010.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. SSDI claims are evaluated under a five-step sequential process.

         The Commissioner follows a five-step sequential process for determining whether a claimant is "disabled" for the purposes of SSDI. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24 (2003). Step one directs the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not disabled and the Commissioner denies the claim. Id. § 404.1520(b).

         The second step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant's medically determinable impairment is "severe." Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(H). "Severe" impairments are those that significantly limit the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Id. ยง 404.1520(c). The Commissioner will deny the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.