(SS) Wofford v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2019cv00792 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/15/21 ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING 17 Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTING 18 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Commissioner's final decision is affirmed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(SS) Wofford v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 WAYNE WOFFORD, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:19-CV-0792 WBS DMC v. ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. 17 18 19 ----oo0oo---Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, 20 brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the 21 Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 22 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 23 to Eastern District of California local rules. 24 The On February 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed 25 findings and recommendations herein which were served on the 26 parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 27 objections within the time specified therein. 28 to the findings and recommendations have been filed. Timely objections 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this court has conducted a de 3 novo review of this case. 4 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 5 supported by the record and by proper analysis. Having carefully reviewed the entire 6 Specifically, the court finds that the Commissioner’s 7 decision was based on properly legal standards and supported by 8 substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 9 Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). See Tacket v. In doing so, the 10 court agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings, among others, 11 that (1) the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly determined 12 plaintiff’s residual capacity functioning in connection with his 13 visual impairment; (2) plaintiff’s ability to work for many years 14 was a proper factor to consider in assessing disability, given 15 the ALJ’s recognition of plaintiff’s lifetime of visual 16 impairments since age two; (3) plaintiff’s Global Assessment of 17 Functioning (“GAF”) score in February 2016 did not indicate 18 worsening mental impairments, given the limitation of this 19 assessment and the improvements he showed with counseling; (4) 20 the ALJ did in fact account for Dr. Izzi’s opinion that plaintiff 21 was moderately limited in his ability to be supervised; and (5) 22 the ALJ properly discounted the testimony of plaintiff and his 23 mother regarding the severity of his symptoms in light of the 24 objective medical evidence and his daily activities. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. 27 28 The findings and recommendations filed February 26, 2021, are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket 2 1 No. 17) is denied; 2 3 3. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18) is granted; 4 4. The Commissioner’s final decision is affirmed; and 5 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter 6 judgment and close this file. 7 Dated: April 15, 2021 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
