Margarita R Solano v. Michael J Astrue

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARGARITA R. SOLANO,

12
13
14
15
16

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. SA CV 12-01047 RZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

17

After modifying the residual functional capacity stated by the Administrative

18

Law Judge, the Social Security Appeals Council adopted the findings of the

19

Administrative Law Judge, and determined that Plaintiff Margarita R. Solano was not

20

disabled. [AR 4-6] Plaintiff challenges the determination on two grounds, neither of

21

which the Court finds persuasive.

22

First, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff cannot perform the alternative jobs which

23

the Administrative Law Judge said she could perform, because they require a reasoning

24

level incompatible with her residual functional capacity. The Appeals Council limited

25

Plaintiff to simple routine tasks. [AR 5] Plaintiff says that one of the alternative jobs, that

26

of photocopying-machine operator, requires a reasoning level of 2, and the other requires

27

a reasoning level of 4. Plaintiff then says that Dr. Morgan, who conducted a records

28

review for the Social Security Administration, determined that Plaintiff had marked

1

limitations in understanding, remembering and carrying out detailed instructions and that

2

a person with such limitations could not perform a job with a reasoning level of 2 or 4.

3

Plaintiff misinterprets the evidence.

4

Dr. Morgan evidently did not feel that Plaintiff’s “marked limitations”

5

prevented her from performing simple tasks, because he concluded, as the Appeals

6

Council noted, that Plaintiff was “[a]ble to complete a normal workday/workweek,

7

performing simple repetitive tasks.” [AR 344] Similarly, the examining psychologist, also

8

referenced by the Appeals Council, concluded that Plaintiff was “capable of learning a

9

routine, repetitive skill,” that “her reasoning capacities are adequate,” and that she “would

10

be able to maintain a regular work schedule.” [AR 330] The reasoning levels in the Labor

11

Department’s DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES do not belie this evidence. They are

12

levels of general education development, not skill sets for a particular job. DICTIONARY,

13

Appendix C, § III. Accordingly, substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s

14

determination that Plaintiff could perform the alternative jobs, each of which was limited

15

to simple and routine tasks.

16

The Court also finds Plaintiff’s second argument unpersuasive. Plaintiff

17

asserts that evidence it submitted to the Appeals Council from a publication called Job

18

Browser Pro shows that there are not enough jobs in these categories to satisfy the

19

requirements at the fifth step of the sequential evaluation. But the vocational expert

20

clearly testified that there were [AR 70] and the Appeals Council explicitly relied on that

21

testimony [AR 5]. Thus, Plaintiff’s argument essentially is that the evidence from Job

22

Browser Pro that she submitted to the Appeals Council undermined the testimony of the

23

expert, such that the Court should reverse the Commissioner’s decision.

24

The Commissioner is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, Howard

25

ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, (9th Cir. 2003), and certainly was not required

26

to explain why an unauthenticated page printed out from a computer screen [AR 20] did

27

not trump the testimony of an expert witness. Plaintiff asserts that other courts have found

28

Job Browser Pro to be reliable information on which an expert might rely. Yet, no expert
-2-

1

did so here. As Plaintiff acknowledges, the Ninth Circuit has held that a vocational

2

expert’s expertise forms the basis for his testimony, Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211,

3

1218 (9th Cir. 2005). The Appeals Council certainly was entitled to rely on the vocational

4

expert’s testimony, even in the face of the page from Job Browser Pro, in making its

5

determination.

6
7

There being no error of law, and substantial evidence supporting the
Commissioner’s decision, the decision is affirmed.

8
9

DATED: July 16, 2013

10
11
12

RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-