Bakewell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Mary Bakewell appeals the district court’s order affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s determination that Bakewell was not disabled and therefore not entitled to Social Security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse.
“We review the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of social security benefits de novo, and will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008) (citations omitted).
At step two of the sequential process for evaluating disability, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a)(4)(ii), the ALJ concluded that Bakewell’s migraines were not a severe impairment. The ALJ’s conclusion that Bakewell’s migraines remained under excellent control with medication is not supported by substantial evidence. The record indicates without contradiction that Bakewell’s migraines incapacitated her for several days and that her persistent symptoms were not controlled effectively with medication. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s position that Bakewell’s migraines do not…