Miguel A Cadena v. Carolyn W Colvin

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh; the ALJ's decision 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
11
12

MIGUEL A. CADENA,
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15
16

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

) Case No.: ED CV 13-2066-PJW
)
)
)
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security
Administration (“the Agency”), denying his application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).

He claims that the

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred when he determined that
Plaintiff could perform the work of an assembler despite the
fact that he was blind in one eye.

For the reasons discussed

below, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err.

26
27
28
1

II.

1

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

In May 2011, Plaintiff applied for DIB, alleging that he

2
3

was disabled due to the fact that, among other things, he could

4

not see out of his right eye.

5

43, 145-46.)

6

reconsideration.

7

and was granted a hearing before an ALJ.

8

2012, he appeared with counsel and testified at the hearing.

9

(AR 37-52.)

(Administrative Record (“AR”) 40,

The Agency denied the application initially and on
(AR 53-60, 63-70.)

Plaintiff then requested
(AR 79-84.)

In June

The ALJ subsequently issued a decision denying

10

benefits.

(AR 24-32.)

Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals

11

Council, which denied review.

12

action.
III.

13

(AR 1-4.)

He then commenced this

ANALYSIS

The ALJ found that Plaintiff had no vision in his right

14
15

eye.

16

he concluded that, despite this limitation, Plaintiff could

17

perform the jobs of plastic hospital products assembler,

18

Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) No. 712.687-010, and

19

small products assembler, DOT No. 739.687-030.

20

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in reaching this

21

conclusion because these two jobs require frequent and constant

22

depth perception, which Plaintiff does not have because he is

23

blind in his right eye.

24

as described in the DOT are incompatible with the limitation of

25

Mr. Cadena from having no vision in his right eye.”).)

26

Court does not find this argument persuasive.

27
28

(AR 27.)

Relying on the testimony of a vocational expert,

(AR 31, 50.)

(Joint Stip. at 7 (“The visual demands

The

The underlying premise of Plaintiff’s appeal is that vision
in both eyes is necessary for depth perception.
2

(Joint Stip. at

1

7.)

Plaintiff, however, does not cite any authority for this

2

proposition.

3

And, given the chance at the hearing to explore this claim,

4

Plaintiff’s counsel elected not to.

Nor is there any support for it in the record.

(AR 51.)

The Agency cites authority for the opposite proposition,

5
6

i.e., that vision in both eyes is not required for depth

7

perception.

8

Sept. 4, 2012.).

9

fact that the claimant had “no useful vision in the right eye,”

10

he could still work as a small products assembler, the same job

11

the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform here.

12

The claimant appealed, arguing that his lack of vision in one

13

eye prevented him from performing the job of assembler because

14

that job required depth perception and he had none due to the

15

loss of vision in one eye.

16

rejected this argument.

17

perception was not synonymous with binocular vision” and cited

18

authority in the medical literature to support that proposition.

19

Id.

20

See Alsup v. Astrue, 2012 WL 3817795, at *8 (D. Or.
In Alsup, the ALJ determined that, despite the

Id. at *7-8.

Id. at *8.

Id. at *3.

The district court

It concluded that “depth

The same result must obtain here.

Plaintiff has not

21

provided the Court with any support for his argument that depth

22

perception requires vision in both eyes.

23

support for that proposition in the record.

24

testified to that fact and the doctors never endorsed it.

25

is there any outside authority before the Court that depth

26

perception is dependent on vision in both eyes.

27

discussed, the only authority the Court has reviewed stands for

28
3

And there is no
Plaintiff never
Nor

In fact, as

1

the opposite proposition.

2

is affirmed and the action is dismissed with prejudice.1

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED:

For that reason, the ALJ’s decision

January 7, 2015

5
6

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\CADENA, 2066\Memorandum Opinion and Order.docx

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

   Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred when he failed to

“describe and quantify” Plaintiff’s limitations with respect to
his lack of vision in his right eye. (Joint Stip. at 13-14.)
Again, the Court disagrees. The ALJ told the vocational expert
that Plaintiff had “no vision in the right eye.” (AR 49.)
Cleary, the vocational expert understood what that meant and how
it might impact Plaintiff’s ability to work. To the extent that
Plaintiff believes that the ALJ should have also stated that
lack of vision prevented Plaintiff from perceiving depth, as
discussed above, there is no support for that proposition in the
record.  
4