Opinion
Case No. 2:14-cv-7907-GJS
09-18-2015
KAMILLE F. TURRENTINE, Plaintiff v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONAND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Turrentine, proceeding pro se, raises one narrow issue in this social security benefits case: Did the administrative law judge err by concluding that she did not suffer from a listed impairment? Because the answer is "no," the Court affirms the Commissioner's determination that Turrentine is not disabled.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 12, 2011, Turrentine applied for supplemental security income benefits, alleging that she had been disabled since June 1, 2007. [Admin Rec. ("AR") 256.] Her claims were initially denied on April 23, 2010 [AR 132] and August 25, 2011 [AR 136], and then denied again upon a request for reconsideration on February 16, 2012 [AR 142]. Upon request, hearings were conducted by an ALJ on April 10 and August 29, 2013. [AR 27, 76.] The ALJ issued an opinion finding Turrentine not disabled on October 21, 2013, which Turrentine appealed to the Appeals Council. [AR 8, 10.] The Appeals Council denied review on August 8, 2014. [AR 5.]
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION UNDER REVIEW
Applying the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Turrentine was not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b)-(g)(1), 416.920(b)-(g)(1). Because only Step Three is at issue here, the Court only summarizes the findings relating to the ALJ's determination on Step Three.
To decide if a claimant is entitled to benefits, an ALJ conducts a five-step inquiry. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The steps are as follows: (1) Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two; (2) Is the claimant's impairment severe? If not, the claimant is found not disabled. If so, proceed to step three; (3) Does the claimant's impairment meet or equal the requirements of any impairment listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 ("the Listings")? If so, the claimant is found disabled. If not, proceed to step four; (4) Is the claimant capable of performing his past work? If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step five; (5) Is the claimant able to do any other work? If not, the claimant is found disabled. If so, the claimant is found not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b)-(g)(1) & 416.920(b)-(g)(1). --------
At Step Two, the ALJ concluded that Turrentine suffered from the following severe impairments: "asthma, mild scoliosis, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, and marijuana abuse." [AR 15.]
Speaking generally, the ALJ concluded that none of "the impairments, considered singly and in combination, ... meet or medically equal the criteria of any medical listing" because "[n]o treating or examining physician has recorded findings equivalent in severity to the criteria of any listed impairment, nor does the evidence show medical findings that are the same or equivalent to those of any listed impairment." [Id.]
As to the mental impairments, the ALJ considered whether the "paragraph B" or "paragraph C" criteria were satisfied. The ALJ found that Turrentine's mental impairments caused here "mild restriction of activities of daily living, moderate difficulties in maintaining social functioning, moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace, and one to two episodes of decompensation of extended duration." [AR 16.] Because these findings do not amount to either two "marked" limitations, or one "marked" limitation and "repeated" episodes of decompensation of extended duration, the ALJ concluded that the paragraph B criteria were not satisfied. Similarly, the ALJ found the paragraph C criteria of Listings 12.03 and 12.06 because Turrentine was able to function independently outside of her home, and she did not suffer from repeated episodes of decompensation of extended duration, a residual disease where increasing mental demands would cause further decompensation, or a history of instability outside a living arrangement designed to prevent decompensation. [Id.]
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine if: (1) the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the Commissioner used correct legal standards. See Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008); Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (citation and quotations omitted); see also Hoopai, 499 F.3d at 1074.
II. The ALJ Correctly Concluded That Turrentine Did Not Qualify for Disability Based on a Listed Impairment.
The sole articulated basis for Turrentine's claim that the ALJ erred at Step Three is that the ALJ concluded at Step Two that Turrentine suffered from certain severe impairments. Turrentine's understanding of the five-step process is mistaken. A finding of a severe impairment is certainly a necessary condition to a finding of disability, but it is by no means sufficient. Despite the name, the standard for a medical condition constituting a severe impairment is quite low: it is "a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims.'" Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Indeed, "[a]n impairment or combination of impairments may be found 'not severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work.'" Id. at 686 (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996)). By contrast, "[l]isted impairments are purposefully set at a high level of severity because the listings were designed to operate as a presumption of disability that makes further inquiry unnecessary." Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). It makes sense for Step Three to be more demanding than Step Two: "When a claimant meets or equals a listing, 'he is presumed unable to work and is awarded benefits without a determination whether he actually can perform his own prior work or other work.' Listed impairments set such strict standards because they automatically end the five-step inquiry, before residual functional capacity is even considered. Id. Thus, Turrentine's sole basis for reversal is unfounded.
Even if the claim were construed to be a substantive challenge to the ALJ's Step 3 determination, it would still fail. Turrentine identifies no specific error in the ALJ's opinion. Nor does she identify a specific listing she believes she qualifies for. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining that plaintiff bears "the burden of proving that she has an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the Commissioner's regulations"). Consequently, her claim could be rejected as entire conclusory. In any event, the ALJ's opinion that Turrentine did not qualify for Listings 1.04, 3.00, 12.04, 12.06, and 12.09 is well reasoned and supported by a lack of medical evidence indicating that any of Turrentine's severe impairments, individually or in combination with one another, rise to the level of a listed impairment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered in favor of the Commissioner.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.
DATED: September 18, 2015
/s/_________
GAIL J. STANDISH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE