Opinion
C22-5875-MLP
05-24-2023
SHANA D., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER
MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Widow's Insurance Benefits. Plaintiff contends the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred by failing to account for all limitations indicated in State agency opinions found persuasive, and failing to account for any limitations caused by Plaintiff's migraines. (Dkt. # 9 at 1.) As discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was born in 1969, has a high school diploma and training as a certified nursing assistant, and has worked as a certified nursing assistant and hospital technician and supply clerk. AR at 345. Plaintiff was last gainfully employed in 2014. Id.
In March 2020, Plaintiff applied for benefits, alleging disability as of February 21, 2014. AR at 285-99. Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and on reconsideration, and Plaintiff requested a hearing. Id. at 165-70, 175-80, 187-90. After the ALJ conducted a hearing in October 2021 (id. at 49-76), the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled. Id. at 16-42.
As the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, the ALJ's decision is the Commissioner's final decision. AR at 4-9. Plaintiff appealed the final decision of the Commissioner to this Court. (Dkt. # 1.)
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court may set aside the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits when the ALJ's findings are based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2005). As a general principle, an ALJ's error may be deemed harmless where it is “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (cited sources omitted). The Court looks to “the record as a whole to determine whether the error alters the outcome of the case.” Id.
“Substantial evidence” is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and 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); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and resolving any other ambiguities that might exist. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). While the Court is required to examine the record as a whole, it may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). When the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the Commissioner's conclusion that must be upheld. Id.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The ALJ Did Not Err in Interpreting the State Agency Opinions
The State agency psychological consultants opined that Plaintiff is “[a]ble to carry out task related communications with coworkers and supervisors. Claimant would require work which does not involve extensive contact with the public or collaboration with coworkers. Incidental contact with either group is not precluded.”