Chandra D Jackson v. Carolyn W Colvin

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh; the ALJ's decision that Plaintiff is not disabled is affirmed and the action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. See order for details. (jy)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHANDRA JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-3925-PJW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

16
17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security

19

Administration (“the Agency”), denying her application for

20

Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).

21

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred when he found that she could

22

perform certain jobs identified by the vocational expert.

23

reasons discussed below, the Court affirms the ALJ’s decision.

24
25

II.

She claims that the

For the

DISCUSSION

This case is back before the Court following remand to the Agency

26

for further proceedings.

In those further proceedings, the ALJ

27

determined that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to

28

perform work that required frequent handling and fingering and only

1

brief or superficial contact with the general public that was

2

incidental to the work performed.

3

expert’s testimony, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform the

4

jobs of garment folder, shoe packer, and advanced material

5

distributor.

6

(AR 341.)

Relying on a vocational

(AR 350.)

Plaintiff takes exception to this finding.

She argues that she

7

cannot perform the jobs of garment folder or shoe packer because,

8

according to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”), they

9

require constant handling and fingering.

And she contends that she

10

cannot perform the job of advanced material distributor because that

11

job requires extensive public contact.

12

(Joint Stip. at 6-9.)

The Agency all but concedes that the ALJ erred when he determined

13

that Plaintiff could perform the garment folder and shoe packer jobs

14

because they require constant reaching and fingering and Plaintiff is

15

limited to frequent reaching and fingering.

16

argues, however, that Plaintiff is capable of performing the advanced

17

material distributor job despite a limitation on contact with the

18

public and, therefore, any error by the ALJ was harmless. (Joint Stip.

19

at 9-10.)

20

It appears that the Agency is right.

(Joint Stip. at 9.)

It

The advanced material

21

distributor job involves distributing things like handbills and/or

22

coupons from house to house, business to business, or to people on the

23

street.

24

involve any significant dealings with people.

25

(DOT No. 230.687-010.)

According to the DOT, it does not
(DOT No. 230.687-010.)

Plaintiff contends that it is possible that, while handing out

26

handbills to people on the street, she could be confronted by someone

27

who was angry at her for handing them a handbill.

28
2

(Joint Stip. at 7.)

1

She argues that, because she is unable to handle this type of

2

encounter, she is precluded from performing this job.

3

Though the Court recognizes that there is a possibility that

4

someone passing out leaflets could be accosted by someone who does not

5

want to receive one, the DOT is what governs here and it provides that

6

the job does not require any significant interaction with people.

7

(DOT No. 230.687-010.)

8

hearing is not required on this job.

9

ALJ was entitled to rely on the DOT description in determining that

In fact, according to the DOT, talking and/or
(DOT No. 230.687-010.)

And the

10

Plaintiff could perform it.

11

1435 (9th Cir. 1995).

12

findings as to the advanced material distributor job are rejected.

13

See Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428,

Thus, Plaintiff’s objections to the ALJ’s

Further, as the vocational expert explained, there are 356,000

14

distributor jobs in the national economy and 1,900 locally.

15

Obviously, this is more than enough to support the ALJ’s finding that

16

there were enough jobs to conclude that Plaintiff was not disabled.

17

See, e.g., Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 524 (9th Cir. 1995)

18

(finding 64,000 nationwide and 2,300 jobs in county sufficient to

19

support finding that plaintiff was not disabled).

20

by the ALJ in finding that Plaintiff could perform the jobs of garment

21

folder and shoe packer was harmless.

22

III.

As such, any error

CONCLUSION

23

For these reasons, the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff is not

24

disabled is affirmed and the action is dismissed with prejudice.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED: May 19, 2014.

27
28

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\JACKSON, C, 3925\memorandum opinion and order.wpd

3