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.

Ganz v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

January 2, 2018

GREGG IRVIN GANZ, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Jeremiah C. Lynch United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Gregg Ganz brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. Ganz alleges disability since November 18, 2013, and was last insured for Title II benefits on December 31, 2014. Ganz's claim was denied initially and on reconsideration, and he requested an administrative hearing. On September 7, 2016, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision finding Ganz not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The Appeals Council denied Ganz's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the agency's final decision for purposes of judicial review. Jurisdiction vests with this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         Ganz was 52 years old at the time of his alleged onset date, and 54 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision.

         I. Standard of Review

         This Court's review is limited. The Court may set aside the Commissioner's decision only where the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or where the decision is based on legal error. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). 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); Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006).

         "The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in | medical testimony, and resolving ambiguities." Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). This Court must uphold the Commissioner's findings "if supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record." Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). "[I]f evidence exists to support more than one rational interpretation, " the Court "must defer to the Commissioner's decision." Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193 (citing Morgan v. Commissioner, 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). This Court "may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner." Widmark, 454 F.3d at 1070 (quoting Edlund, 253 F.3d at 1156).

         II. Burden of Proof

         To establish disability, a claimant bears "the burden of proving an 'inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which...has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.'" Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193-94 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)).

         In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The claimant bears the burden of establishing disability at steps one through four of this process. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). At the first step, the ALJ will consider whether the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(I). If not, the ALJ must determine at step two whether the claimant has any impairments that qualify as "severe" under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If the ALJ finds that the claimant does have one or more severe impairments, the ALJ will compare those impairments to the impairments listed in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the ALJ finds at step three that the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment, then the claimant is considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(iii).

         If, however, the claimant's impairments do not meet or equal the severity of any impairment described in the Listing of Impairments, then the ALJ must proceed to step four and consider whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § . 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant establishes an inability to engage in past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to establish that the claimant can perform other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

         III. Discussion

         The ALJ found at step one that Ganz last met the insured status requirements of the Act on December 31, 2014, and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date. At step two, the ALJ found that Ganz had the following severe impairments: osteoarthritis of the knees, status post right hip replacement, degenerative disc disease of the neck and lower back, status post cervical foraminotomies, bilateral rotator cuff tears, and degenerative changes of the right wrist and hand. The ALJ concluded at step three that Ganz did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled any impairment described in the Listing of Impairments. The ALJ also found that Ganz's subjective symptom testimony was only partially credible. The ALJ concluded that Ganz had the residual functional capacity to perform a reduced range of light work. Although the ALJ found that Ganz was not capable of performing his past relevant work, he concluded that Ganz was not disabled because there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Ganz could perform, including work as a bench assembler, small products assembler, laundry folder, or cashier. (Doc. 4, at 24-37).

         A. Medical Opinions

         Ganz argues the ALJ erred by not giving more weight to opinions provided by two of his treating physicians, and by failing to consider medical evaluations ...


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.