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.

Sullender v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. Idaho

June 17, 2019

BRENDA LEE SULLENDER, Petitioner,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant,

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          RONALD E. BUSH, CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is Petitioner Brenda Lee Sullender's Complaint/Petition for Review (Docket No. 1), seeking review of the Social Security Administration's decision denying her applications for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income for lack of disability. See generally Compl./Pet. for Review (Docket No. 1). This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Having carefully considered the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order:

         I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

         On September 24, 2014, Petitioner Brenda Lee Sullender (“Petitioner”) filed applications for Title II Disability Insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability beginning August 1, 2012. Both claims were denied on December 31, 2014 and, again, on reconsideration on March 13, 2015. On March 30, 2015, Petitioner timely filed a Request for Hearing. On February 15, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Stephen Marchioro held a hearing in Pocatello, Idaho, at which time Petitioner, represented by attorney Dan Bott appeared and testified. Impartial vocational expert, Sara Statz, also appeared and testified.

         On March 22, 2017, the ALJ issued a Decision denying Petitioner's claim, finding that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Petitioner timely requested a review from the Appeals Council and, on December 15, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Petitioner's Request for Review, making final the ALJ's decision.

         Having exhausted her administrative remedies, Petitioner timely filed the instant action, arguing that “[t]he conclusions and findings of fact of the [Respondent] are not supported by substantial evidence and are contrary to law and regulation.” Compl./Pet. for Review, p. 2 (Docket No. 1). In particular, Petitioner argues that “[t]he [residual functional capacity assessment] is unsupported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to follow the treating physician rule and the [residual functional capacity] is not supported by any medical opinion.” Mem. ISO Pet. for Review, pp. 7-13 (Docket No. 17). Petitioner therefore requests that the Court either reverse the ALJ's Decision and find that she is entitled to disability benefits or, alternatively, remand the case for further proceedings and award attorneys' fees. See id. at p. 13; see also Compl./Pet. for Review/Compl., p. 2 (Docket No. 1).

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         To be upheld, the Commissioner's decision must be supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. See 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. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In other words, if there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's factual decisions, they must be upheld, even when there is conflicting evidence. See 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. See 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 (see 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).

         As to questions of fact, the Court's role is to review the record as a whole to determine whether it contains evidence allowing a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions reached by 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 within the medical testimony (see Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984)), resolving any 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 contained in the record (see Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982)). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment or interpretation of the record for that of the ALJ. See Flaten, 44 F.3d at 1457; Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1549 (9th Cir. 1985).

         As to questions of law, the ALJ's decision must be based on proper legal standards and will be reversed for legal error. See Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019. At the same time, 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.” See Smith v. Heckler, 820 F.2d 1093, 1094 (9th Cir. 1987).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Sequential Process

         In evaluating the evidence presented at an administrative hearing, the ALJ must follow a sequential process in determining whether a person is disabled in general (see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920) - or continues to be disabled (see 20 C.F.R. ...


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.