United States District Court, D. Idaho
JOSE L. MARTINEZ, JR., Petitioner,
CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
RONALD E. BUSH, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Jose Martinez's Petition for Review (Dkt. 1), filed February 12, 2013, seeking review of the Social Security Administration's final decision to deny his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Having carefully reviewed the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order:
I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner Jose Martinez ("Petitioner") filed an application for benefits alleging an onset date of August 20, 2009. AR 113, 117. On December 23, 2011, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Mark R. Dawson held a hearing in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Petitioner appeared at the hearing via video from Boise, Idaho, and a vocational expert, Kent Granat, MHR, also appeared and testified. Id. Petitioner was represented by an attorney, Michael McCarthy. AR 12, 25.
On January 6, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision, denying Petitioner's claims, finding that Petitioner was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. AR 12. Petitioner timely requested review from the Appeals Council. On December 11, 2012, after considering additional evidence submitted by Petitioner, the Appeals Council denied Petitioner's request for review (AR 1-3), making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.
At the time of his alleged disability onset Petitioner was 50 years old, had a high school education and past work experience at the medium to heavy level. AR 28, 227.
Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Petitioner timely filed the instant action, arguing that the ALJ failed (1) to articulate legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Gary Luken's opinion, and (2) to support his adverse credibility finding with substantial evidence. See Pet.'s Br., p. 3 (Dkt. 19).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To be upheld, the Commissioner's decision must be supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Matney ex. rel . Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992); Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1990). Findings as to any question of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). That is, if there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's factual decisions, they must be upheld, even when there is conflicting evidence. Hall v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 602 F.2d 1372, 1374 (9th Cir. 1979).
"Substantial evidence" is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Tylitzki v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 1411, 1413 (9th Cir. 1993); Flaten v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995). The standard requires more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of evidence, Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1975); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989), and "does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence." Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988).
With respect to questions of fact, the role of the Court is to review the record as a whole to determine whether it contains evidence that would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions of the ALJ. See Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401; see also Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019. The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility and resolving conflicts in medical testimony, Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984), resolving ambiguities, see Vincent ex. rel . Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1984), and drawing inferences logically flowing from the evidence, Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation in a disability proceeding, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment or interpretation of the record for that of the ALJ. Flaten, 44 F.3d at 1457; Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1549 (9th Cir. 1985).
With respect to questions of law, the ALJ's decision must be based on proper legal standards and will be reversed for legal error. Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019. The ALJ's construction of the Social Security Act is entitled to deference if it has a reasonable basis in law. See id. However, reviewing federal courts "will not rubber-stamp an administrative decision that is inconsistent with the statutory mandate or that frustrates the congressional purpose underlying the statute." Smith v. Heckler, 820 F.2d 1093, 1094 (9th Cir. 1987).
A. Sequential ...