ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying an application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"). For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge will recommend that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment be granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, born in 1961, applied on August 17, 2015 for SSI, disability insurance benefits, and disabled widow's benefits, alleging disability for all three beginning on January 30, 2015. Administrative Transcript ("AT") 35. Plaintiff alleged she was unable to work due to lower back problems and a pinched nerve in her right leg. AT 69. In a decision dated January 17, 2018, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled.1 AT 15-22. The ALJ made the following findings (citations to 20 C.F.R. omitted):
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2019.
2. It was previously found that the claimant is the unmarried widow of the deceased insured worker and has attained the age of 50. The claimant met the non-disability requirements for disabled widow's benefits set forth in section 202(e) of the Social Security Act.
3. The prescribed period ends on August 31, 2019.
4. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 30, 2015, the alleged onset date.
5. The claimant has the following medically severe impairments: depression, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities, mild sigmoid diverticulitis, moderate internal hemorrhoids, and sciatica.
6. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
7. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a wide range of light work: the claimant can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, the claimant can stand and walk six hours and sit six hours in an eight-hour workday with normal breaks. The claimant can perform occasional climbing of ladders, ropes, scaffolding, ramps and stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling.
8. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a deli-sales clerk. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity.
9. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from January 30, 2015, through the date of this decision.
AT 18-22.
ISSUES PRESENTED
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ committed the following error in finding plaintiff not disabled: The ALJ failed to account for mild mental limitations at step four of the sequential evaluation.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether (1) it is based on proper legal standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and (2) substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports it. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 873 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). It means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007), quoting Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). "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) (citations omitted). "The court will uphold the ALJ's conclusion when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation." Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008).
The record as a whole must be considered, Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1986), and both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the ALJ's conclusion weighed. See Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). The court may not affirm the ALJ's decision simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. Id.; see also Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). If substantial evidence supports the administrative findings, or if there is conflicting evidence supporting a finding of either disability or nondisability, the finding of the ALJ is conclusive, see Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 1987), and may be set aside only if an improper legal standard was applied in weighing the evidence. See Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1988).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ committed reversible error by failing to account for the impact her mild mental limitations would have on her ability to perform past relevant work as a food sales clerk. She argues that her "severe impairment" of depression at step two is incompatible with an ability to do this job.
The ALJ found plaintiff's medically severe impairments to include depression. AT 18. On this issue, the ALJ's decision stated:
The record also indicates a diagnosis of depression, but it appears to be controlled with fluoxetine, which she has been taking for many years.2 The undersigned finds that this condition causes no more than a mild restriction in understanding, remembering, or applying information, interacting with others, concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace, or adapting and managing oneself. The claimant testified that she has had trouble with her memory, but otherwise, she reported physical restrictions on her activities.3 The claimant has not sought treatment beyond medication she has used for years.
AT 18.
Defendant points out that plaintiff did not list depression on her application for disability benefits. AT 265-281. Though she was diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication for it, there is no evidence that she received specialized psychiatric care or was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. Moreover, plaintiff's work history indicates that she worked as a deli clerk at a grocery store from 2011 to 2014, a period in which she was taking fluoxetine for depression. AT 319.
The ALJ gave some weight to the opinion of State agency medical consultant Dr. H.M. Estrin, who opined on plaintiff's physical limitations, though the RFC was more restrictive than Dr. Estrin's evaluation "based on subjective complaints of pain and limitation." AT 21; see AT 81-84. "No treating providers have opined that the claimant is more limited than the undersigned finds in this decision," the ALJ stated. AT 21. Plaintiff's RFC did not include any mental limitations.
As to available jobs, the ALJ stated:
The record indicates the claimant earned over substantial gainful activity levels performing work as a deli clerk at a grocery store. The vocational expert testified that this work was classified as sales clerk, food (DOT #290.477-018), and was light SVP 3 as generally performed4, but the claimant performed the work at the medium exertional level. The vocational expert also testified that a person with the claimant's residual functional capacity would be able to perform this occupation as it is generally performed. In comparing the claimant's residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of the work, the undersigned finds that the claimant is able to perform it as it is generally performed.
AT 21-22; see AT 62-64 (hearing testimony).
Plaintiff argues that her mild difficulties with regard to understanding, remembering, or applying information; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing herself "may have an adverse impact on [her] ability to perform the duties of her past semi-skilled work as a food sales clerk." (ECF No. 12 at 2.) However, plaintiff has not shown that the RFC was not supported by substantial evidence; nor does she contest the ALJ's finding that her subjective complaints were less than fully credible. See AT 20. In fact, as noted above, plaintiff performed this same job while on antidepressant medication to control her symptoms. Plaintiff has not shown harmful error on this basis.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 9) be denied;
2. The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11) be granted;
and
3. Judgment be entered for the Commissioner.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
