Sims v. Colvin

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 24 Motion for Summary Judgment (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

VENESSA M. SIMS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
)
Commissioner, Social Security Administration, )
)
Defendant.
)
)

17

Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Venessa M. Sims (“Sims”) appeals a final decision of the Commissioner of Social

18

Security denying Sims’ application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under

19

Title II of the Social Security Act. Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary

20

judgment. See ECF Nos. 21, 24. Upon consideration of the briefing1 and for the reasons set forth

21

below, the Court DENIES Sims’ motion and GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion.

22

I.

23

BACKGROUND
Sims was born on May 31, 1969. AR 49. She obtained a two-year associates degree in

24

business administration in the mid-1990s. AR 132-33. She has past work experience as a

25

receptionist, childcare worker, accounting clerk, and general office clerk. AR 23.

26
27
1

28

This matter was submitted without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16–5.
1

Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

On March 24, 2009, Sims filed a Title II application for a period of disability and disability

2

insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. AR 151. She also filed a Title XVI application for

3

supplemental security income on March 31, 2009. AR 151. In both claims, Sims alleged disability

4

beginning on August 30, 2007. AR 151. Specifically, Sims alleged that she suffered from shoulder

5

injuries resulting from a fall at work and depression. AR 298. These claims were initially denied on

6

July 3, 2009, and again upon reconsideration on November 18, 2009. AR 151. Sims then filed a

7

written request for a hearing on January 14, 2010. AR 151. This request was granted, and Sims

8

appeared and testified at a hearing before an ALJ on July 16, 2010, in San Jose. Sims’ claims were

9

denied by the ALJ on October 28, 2010, because the ALJ determined that Sims was capable of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

performing past relevant work as a receptionist. AR 13.
On January 19, 2012, the Appeals Council vacated and remanded the ALJ’s decision. AR

12

13. In its remand order, the Appeals Council directed the ALJ to: (1) further evaluate Sims’

13

depression; (2) give further consideration to Sims’ maximum residual functional capacity (“RFC”)

14

and provide appropriate rationale with specific references to evidence in the record in support of

15

the assessed limitations; (3) determine Sims’ RFC absent consideration of the limiting effects

16

caused by Sims’ substance abuse if the ALJ concluded that Sims is disabled but that substance

17

abuse is a contributing factor material to the issue of disability; and (4) obtain evidence from a

18

vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on Sims’ ability to work. AR 13.

19

On remand, Sims appeared and testified at a hearing before the ALJ on March 19, 2012, in

20

San Jose. AR 13. Lorian I. Hyatt, an impartial vocational expert, also appeared at the hearing. AR

21

13. Dr. Ulrich B. Jacobson, an impartial medical expert, testified at the hearing via telephone. AR

22

13. On May 12, 2012, the ALJ issued a written decision concluding that Sims was not disabled

23

because Sims is capable of performing past relevant work as a receptionist, accounting clerk, and

24

general office clerk and is therefore not entitled to benefits. AR 13-25.

25

In making her finding, the ALJ determined that Sims had not performed substantial gainful

26

activity for portions of the period during which Sims alleged that she was disabled. The ALJ

27

further found that Sims suffered from various severe ailments stemming from left shoulder and left

28

2
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

knee injuries, and that Sims’ impairments did not meet or medically equal an impairment on the

2

Social Security Administration’s list of medical conditions that automatically confer disability

3

status. AR 16-17. The ALJ also determined that Sims’ depression caused only minimal limitations

4

in Sims’ ability to perform basic activities and thus was not severe. AR 17.

5

The ALJ then determined that Sims had the RFC to perform light work with the following

6

restrictions: “the claimant is limited in her ability to push and pull overhead. She can reach

7

overhead above the shoulders with the left upper extremity on no more than an occasional basis.

8

The claimant must alternate positions between sitting and standing every 20 minutes, but can still

9

perform work both sitting and standing.” AR 18. In light of this RFC finding, the ALJ concluded

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

that Sims was capable of performing past relevant work as a receptionist, accounting clerk, and

11

general office clerk. AR 18. In making the RFC finding, the ALJ relied on Sims’ self-reported

12

symptoms, the objective medical evidence from the record, and the testimony of the vocational

13

expert. AR 17. The Court reviews this evidence in turn.

14

First, the ALJ considered all of Sims’ self-reported “symptoms and the extent to which

15

these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and

16

other evidence.” AR 18. The ALJ determined that portions of Sims’ personal testimony regarding

17

the severity of her symptoms were not credible due to various inconsistencies in the record. AR 19.

18

Specifically, the ALJ noted that Sims testified in hearings and in written statements that Sims’ left

19

shoulder injury and depression prevent her from sustaining gainful employment, completing

20

activities of daily living, and engaging in normal social functioning. AR 19. The ALJ contrasted

21

these alleged symptoms with Sims’ reported activities of daily living, which included acting as the

22

primary caregiver for her minor son and dog, preparing basic meals, light housekeeping, laundering

23

clothes, and shopping for groceries. AR 19. Next, the ALJ noted that Sims’ alleged limitations and

24

subjective complaints were not fully persuasive in light of Sims’ medical records, which, in the

25

aggregate, corroborated one another and were consistent with the ALJ’s ultimate RFC finding. AR

26

22. Throughout the record, many of Sims’ doctors, including Sims’ examining physician Dr.

27

Stephen Mann and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Samir Sharma, opined that Sims was able to return to

28

3
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

work with only minimal limitations. AR 427, 598. As such, the ALJ determined that Sims’

2

testimony concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not

3

credible to the extent such testimony was inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC finding. AR 19.

4

Second, the ALJ considered all of the medical evidence submitted as part of the record. AR

5

19. The ALJ considered records from Kaiser Permanente from September 7, 2004 through July 6,

6

2007 that provided documentation of treatment of Sims’ left shoulder injury, chronic lower back

7

pain, and depression. AR 20. Sims’ records note that she was released to modified work duty as of

8

May 24, 2006, with restrictions on lifting more than ten pounds, repetitive bending and stooping,

9

and overhead activities. AR 553.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The ALJ also considered records from four physicians: Drs. Mann, Sharma, Tran, and

11

Afroz. The Court addresses each in turn. Dr. Mann, who examined Sims both in 2007 and 2009

12

confirmed the presence of shoulder injury and depression and recommended on October 8, 2007

13

that Sims see an orthopedist. AR 20. On October 8, 2009, Dr. Mann noted Sims’ “persistent high

14

level of pain is more representative of her psychiatric problems than any injuries that occurred” and

15

opined that Sims’ only work restriction would be limited use of her left arm above shoulder. AR

16

598.

17

The ALJ also considered records from orthopedic surgeon Dr. Sharma, who treated Sims

18

for the shoulder injury from January 22, 2008 to October 2009. AR 20. On February 15, 2008, Dr.

19

Sharma ordered an MRI of Sims’ left shoulder that revealed swelling in the left shoulder. AR 20.

20

On July 7, 2008, Dr. Sharma preformed arthroscopic surgery in Sims’ left shoulder. AR 20. Dr.

21

Sharma recommended that Sims participate in twelve post-operation sessions of physical therapy.

22

AR 462. Sims participated in six sessions. AR 459. Sims’ physical therapist noted that Sims was

23

“unable to come to therapy” due to “to personal business” and had “shown slow improvement” due

24

to “her low threshold for pain.” AR 459. Sims continued regular follow-up visits with Dr. Sharma

25

through October 2009. AR 426. On April 21, 2009, Dr. Sharma noted that Sims had recently fallen

26

again on her left shoulder. AR 430. On June 2, 2009, Dr. Sharma also noted that Sims was

27

involved in a motor vehicle accident, which exacerbated the shoulder injury. AR 428. Throughout

28

4
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Dr. Sharma’s reports, including those following both the second fall and the motor vehicle

2

accident, Dr. Sharma noted that Sims could return to modified work that “should include no

3

overhead lifting and no lifting greater than 15 pounds using her left arm due to her shoulder

4

injury.” AR 465.

5

The ALJ also considered records from internist Dr. Thang Tran, who treated Sims for

6

chronic knee pain from April 29, 2008 to February 14, 2012. AR 20. In these records, Dr. Tran

7

noted that Sims underwent arthroscopic left knee surgery on November 5, 2009. AR 20.

8
9

Finally, the ALJ considered records from psychiatrist Dr. Syed Afroz. AR 20. On March 1,
2012, Dr. Afroz submitted a medical statement, in which Dr. Afroz confirmed that Sims suffered

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

from depression, anxiety, hallucinations, and problems interacting in public but observed that

11

Sims’ symptoms were in remission and that Sims had no more than mild limitations relative to

12

various work-related mental functions. AR 20-21.

13

Third, the ALJ considered testimony from the vocational expert. AR 23. The vocational

14

expert testified about a hypothetical worker with Sims’ same age, education, and work experience,

15

“who can lift 10 pounds frequently, 20 pounds occasionally; who must physically alternate

16

positions every 20 minutes from sit to stand but can still preform work both sitting and standing;

17

[who] would only have occasional left overhead reaching.” AR 136. The vocational expert opined

18

that such a worker would be able to work as an “accounting clerk . . . a general office clerk . . .

19

[and] a receptionist.” AR 136.

20

Based on the testimony of the vocational expert and the objective medical evidence, the

21

ALJ determined that Sims is able to perform past relevant work as an accounting clerk, a general

22

office clerk, and a receptionist and is therefore not disabled. AR 23. The Appeals Council denied

23

review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. AR 1-6. Sims now

24

seeks judicial review of the denial of benefits.

25

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

26

A.

27

This Court has the authority to review the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. 42

28

Standard of Review

5
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner’s decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by

2

substantial evidence or if it is based upon the application of improper legal standards. Morgan v.

3

Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999); Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521,

4

523 (9th Cir. 1995). In this context, the term “substantial evidence” means “more than a mere

5

scintilla but less than a preponderance – it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might

6

accept as adequate to support the conclusion.” Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523; see also Drouin v.

7

Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). When determining whether substantial evidence

8

exists to support the Commissioner’s decision, the Court examines the administrative record as a

9

whole, considering adverse as well as supporting evidence. Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1257; Hammock v.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989). Where evidence exists to support more than one rational

11

interpretation, the Court must defer to the decision of the Commissioner. Moncada, 60 F.3d at 523;

12

Drouin, 966 F.2d at 1258.

13

B.

14

Disability benefits are available under Title II of the Social Security Act when an eligible

Standard for Determining Disability

15

claimant is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically

16

determinable physical or mental impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a

17

continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

18

“ALJs are to apply a five-step sequential review process in determining whether a claimant

19

qualifies as disabled.” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2009).

20

At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is performing “substantial gainful activity.”

21

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not disabled; if not, the analysis proceeds to

22

step two. Id. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a severe

23

impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is

24

not disabled; if so, the analysis proceeds to step three. Id. At step three, the ALJ determines

25

whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals an

26

impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments (“Listing”), 20 C.F.R. § 404, subpt. P, app. 1. 20

27

C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is disabled; if not, the analysis proceeds to step

28

6
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

four. Id. At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity

2

(“RFC”) to do his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is

3

not disabled; if not, the analysis proceeds to step five. Id. At step five, the ALJ determines whether

4

the claimant can do other jobs in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the

5

claimant is not disabled; if not, the claimant is disabled. Id. “The burden of proof is on the claimant

6

at steps one through four, but shifts to the Commissioner at step five.” Bray, 554 F.3d at 1222.

7

III.

8
9

DISCUSSION
Sims challenges the ALJ’s step four determination that Sims is able to perform past relevant

work as an accounting clerk, a general office clerk, and a receptionist and is therefore not disabled.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Sims contends that the ALJ erred in two ways. First, Sims alleges that the ALJ failed to give

11

sufficient weight to Sims’ statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of

12

her symptoms. Second, Sims alleges that the ALJ failed to reconcile the differences between the

13

vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”), which lists the

14

physical requirements of various job titles. The Court addresses each of Sims’ contentions in turn.

15

A.

16

Sims’ first contention is that the ALJ improperly rejected Sims’ subjective complaints

Credibility Determination

17

regarding her functional limitations. Sims argues that the ALJ erred by relying on insubstantial

18

evidence in making this credibility determination.

19

“In evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain, an ALJ

20

must engage in a two-step analysis.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir.

21

2007). “First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical

22

evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or

23

other symptoms alleged.” Id. at 1036. At this stage, the claimant need only show that her

24

impairment “could reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom.” Smolen v. Chater, 80

25

F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996). If the claimant produces enough evidence to fulfill the first step of

26

the analysis, then “the ALJ can reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms

27

only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Id. at 1281. “General

28

7
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what

2

evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.

3

1995). “In weighing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ may consider his reputation for truthfulness,

4

inconsistencies either in his testimony or between his testimony and his conduct, his daily

5

activities, his work record, and testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the nature,

6

severity, and effect of the symptoms of which he complains.” Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d

7

789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997).

8
9

In this case, at the first step of the credibility analysis, the ALJ determined that Sims had
produced enough evidence to verify Sims’ medically determinable impairments discussed above,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

which could reasonably be expected to cause some of Sims’ alleged symptoms. AR 19; see

11

Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1035-36. At the second step, the ALJ found Sims’ testimony regarding

12

the severity of her symptoms not credible because this testimony conflicted with the record in two

13

ways: (1) Sims’ testimony conflicted with her self-reported daily activities and (2) Sims’ testimony

14

regarding her functional limitations conflicted with her medical records as whole. AR 19, 22.

15

Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Sims’ testimony that Sims

16

was unable to sustain gainful employment, complete activities of daily living, and engage in

17

normal social functioning was not entirely credible.

18

First, Sims reported that symptoms associated with her medically determinable impairments

19

have caused significant limitations on her ability to sustain gainful employment, complete activities

20

of daily living, and engage in normal social functioning. AR 19. However, the ALJ noted that

21

Sims’ subjective complaints were “contradicted by evidence in the record that the claimant acts as

22

the primary caregiver for her minor son and dog” and “that [Sims] can perform a wide range of

23

activities of daily living, such as preparing basic meals, light housekeeping, laundering clothes, and

24

shopping for groceries.” AR 19. The ALJ thus concluded that the Sims’ daily activities do not

25

comport with Sims’ allegations regarding the severity of her symptoms. AR 19. The record

26

supports the ALJ’s finding because Sims herself reported that she “exercises frequently,” AR 873,

27

vacuums and mops her home, AR 280, and drives herself to the grocery store, AR 281. Sims also

28

8
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

“ensures her minor son is cared for in terms of getting up and getting dressed for school”; she also

2

“prepares his meals” and “washes his clothes.” AR 288-89. Furthermore, Sims told a social worker

3

that Sims had been babysitting her nephew for at least 40 hours a week, AR 866, and that Sims was

4

interested in either going back to work or attending school once her nephew started day care, AR

5

860-61. Moreover, Sims’ claim that she is unable to engage in normal social functioning is

6

undermined by the fact that she is “close to her family and relatives and enjoys spending time with

7

them.” AR 881.

8
9

Second, the ALJ found that Sims’ alleged limitations and subjective complaints were not
fully persuasive in light of Sims’ medical records and the medical evidence, which was consistent

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

with the ALJ’s RFC finding. AR 22. The record supports the ALJ’s finding because Sims’ past

11

MRIs revealed only a mild shoulder problem in May 2009, AR 448, and a normal lumbar spine,

12

thoracic spine, left clavicle, scapula, and proximal humerus in May 2009, AR 673-76. This

13

undermines Sims’ allegations that her shoulder injuries were so severe as to prevent her from

14

sustaining gainful employment or completing activities of daily living. AR 19. In addition,

15

throughout the record, many of Sims’ doctors opined that Sims was able to return to work with

16

only minimal limitations, including Dr. Mann, AR 598, and Dr. Sharma, AR 427. Furthermore, Dr.

17

Afroz, a psychiatrist, opined that while Sims suffered from depression, anxiety, hallucinations, and

18

problems interacting in public, Sims’ symptoms were in remission and Sims had no more than mild

19

limitations relative to various work-related mental functions. AR 833. Dr. Afroz’s opinion

20

undermines Sims’ allegations that her depression is severe enough to prevent her from sustaining

21

gainful employment. AR 19.

22

In sum, the ALJ offered “specific, clear and convincing evidence” for discrediting Sims’

23

subjective testimony. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281. Both the objective medical evidence and Sims’ self-

24

reported daily activities do not comport with Sims’ allegations as to the severity of her symptoms

25

and her functional limitations.2 Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ presented specific

26

2

27
28

The ALJ also found Sims not credible because Sims’ behavior at the hearing undermined Sims’
statements that she was not using drugs. AR 19. The ALJ further noted that Sims failed to submit
evidence of her sobriety after the hearing despite an opportunity do so. AR 19. The record suggests
that clean results of a toxicology test conducted on April 2, 2012 were submitted to the ALJ on
9

Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

and legitimate reasons for finding Sims’ subjective complaints unreliable. See Fair v. Brown, 885

2

F.2d 597, 604 (9th Cir. 1989).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

B.

Conflict between Vocational Expert Testimony and the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles

Sims’ second contention is that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to inquire,
identify, and reasonably resolve conflicts between testimony from the vocational expert and the
DOT, which lists the physical requirements of various job titles. Sims argues that the job titles that
the vocational expert testified Sims was capable of holding require manipulative demands in the
DOT that exceed what the ALJ found Sims could do.
An ALJ may not “rely on a vocational expert’s testimony regarding the requirements of a
particular job without first inquiring whether the testimony conflicts with the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles.” Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007). “SSR 00–4p
unambiguously provides that [w]hen a [vocational expert] . . . provides evidence about the
requirements of a job or occupation, the adjudicator has an affirmative responsibility to ask about
any possible conflict between that [vocational expert] . . . evidence and information provided in the
[Dictionary of Occupational Titles].” Id. (emphasis in original). “SSR 00–4p further provides that
the adjudicator will ask the vocational expert if the evidence he or she has provided is consistent
with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and obtain a reasonable explanation for any apparent
conflict.” Id. at 1152-53 (emphasis in original). However, failing to inquire whether the testimony
conflicts with the DOT is the sort of “procedural error” that may be “harmless” if there is no
conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT. Id. at 1154 n. 19; see also Fritz v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 480 Fed. App’x 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that the “ALJ’s
failure to ask the vocational expert whether the expert’s testimony contradicted the Dictionary of
April 20, 2012 through a letter from Sims’ counsel. AR 946-47. However, the record also suggests
that the ALJ gave Sims two weeks after the hearing, which took place on March 19, 2012, to
submit any sobriety evidence. AR 144. Accordingly, the ALJ may have disregarded the April 20,
2012 letter attaching the toxicology test results as untimely. The Court does not reach the issue of
whether Sims’ behavior at the hearing and subsequent submission or lack of submission of
toxicology test results undermined Sims’ credibility because the Court finds that even if Sims had
submitted timely, clean toxicology test results, there is substantial evidence in the record relating to
the objective medical evidence and Sims’ self-reported daily activities to undermine Sims’
credibility as to the severity of her symptoms.
10
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Occupational Titles was harmless error because Fritz has not shown any contradiction to be

2

present”).

3

In this case, the ALJ failed to ask the vocational expert whether the vocational expert’s

4

testimony that a person of Sims’ age, education, work experience, and RFC could work as an

5

accounting clerk, a general office clerk, and a receptionist conflicted with the DOT. AR 129-30,

6

132, 133-37; see also Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1152. However, the ALJ’s failure to perform the

7

appropriate inquiry was harmless because Sims has not shown any true conflict between Sims’

8

abilities and the requirements of those job titles in the DOT for the reasons stated below. AR 23;

9

see also Fritz, 480 Fed. App’x. at 887.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Sims contends that there is a conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the

11

DOT concerning her ability to perform past relevant work. When asked whether a hypothetical

12

individual with Sims’ RFC could perform certain work, the vocational expert testified that such an

13

individual would be able to perform the work of a “receptionist,” “accounting clerk,” or “general

14

office clerk.” AR 136. The ALJ, accepting this testimony, concluded that Sims is capable of

15

preforming her past relevant work as a receptionist, accounting clerk, and general office clerk. AR

16

23. Sims’ contention before this Court is that the ALJ erred because the ALJ did not consider

17

whether the DOT description of these jobs was in conflict with the vocational expert’s testimony.

18

More specifically, Sims’ contention relates to the issue of whether the job requirements of the job

19

titles in the DOT require more “reaching” than what the ALJ found that Sims can do. The DOT

20

description for all three jobs (receptionist, accounting clerk, and general office clerk) provides that

21

a worker must be capable of frequent reaching. See DOT §§ 237.367-038, 1991 WL 672192

22

(receptionist), 216.482-010, 1991 WL 671933 (accounting clerk), 209.562-010, 1991 WL 671792

23

(general office clerk). Sims contends that because the ALJ found that Sims is limited to “no more

24

than occasional” overhead reaching with her left arm, the manipulative demands of each job listed

25

by the vocational expert go beyond Sims’ limitations and thus the vocational expert’s testimony

26

contradicted the DOT. AR 18.

27
28

11
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

However, the job duties of the three jobs do not require reaching with both arms. See DOT

2

§§ 237.367-038, 1991 WL 672192 (receptionist), 216.482-010, 1991 WL 671933 (accounting

3

clerk), 209.562-010, 1991 WL 671792 (general office clerk). Rather, frequent reaching with one

4

arm is sufficient to complete the job duties of a receptionist, accounting clerk, or general office

5

clerk, as described by the DOT. In Kroeker v. Callahan, the Ninth Circuit found that a vocational

6

expert’s testimony that a claimant who had limited left arm mobility could perform work defined

7

by the DOT as requiring “frequent reaching” did not contradict the DOT. No. 96-15835, 127 F.3d

8

1105, at *2 (9th Cir. Oct. 16, 1997) (“While the DOT further classifies each job as requiring

9

frequent reaching and handling, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Kroeker’s

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

dominant right hand was fully functional. Thus, the expert’s testimony that Kroeker could perform

11

the jobs of laundry worker and escort-vehicle driver did not contradict the DOT, and his testimony

12

constituted substantial evidence to support the denial of benefits.”). The Fifth Circuit and other

13

district courts in this Circuit are in accord. See Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131, 146 (5th Cir. 2000)

14

(holding that a vocational expert’s testimony that a claimant whose left arm had been amputated

15

could perform work requiring occasional or frequent handling and fingering was not inconsistent

16

with DOT); Gutierrez v. Astrue, No. 10-9690, 2012 WL 234366, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012)

17

(“[G]enerally speaking, the requirement that an employee frequently use his hands to perform a job

18

does not mean that he has to be able to use both hands”); McConnell v. Astrue, No. 08-667, 2010

19

WL 1946728, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2010) (“While the two challenged jobs do require, inter

20

alia, frequent or occasional reaching, handling and/or fingering, plaintiff has no significant

21

limitations in the use of his left arm and hand, and thus would be capable of performing such

22

requirements.”); Feibusch v. Astrue, No. 07-244, 2008 WL 583554, at *5 (D. Haw. Mar. 4, 2008)

23

(noting that “the use of two arms is not necessarily required for jobs that require reaching and

24

handling”); see also Diehl v. Barnhart, 357 F. Supp. 2d 804, 822 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (finding that a

25

vocational expert’s testimony that a claimant with limited use of one arm could perform jobs

26

requiring frequent reaching, handling, and fingering was not inconsistent with DOT).3

27

3

28

Sims cites to the Seventh Circuit case, Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2006), to
support her argument that her preclusion from overhead reaching with one arm is inconsistent with
12
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

In the instant case, the vocational expert’s testimony was not inconsistent with the DOT

2

because Sims had full functioning of her right arm. Accordingly, the ALJ’s error in failing to ask

3

the vocational expert whether the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the DOT was

4

harmless. See Fritz, 480 Fed. App’x. at 887. Therefore, despite the ALJ’s failure to ask whether the

5

vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the DOT, the ALJ properly relied on the vocational

6

expert’s testimony in determining that Sims could perform the occupations of receptionist,

7

accounting clerk, and general office clerk. AR 23; see also Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1152-53.

8

IV.

9

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

11

2.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and

12

3.

The Clerk shall close the file.

13
14
15

Dated: July 7, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

a job description in the DOT that requires frequent reaching. Prochaska is inapposite. The
inconsistency in that case was that claimant could not reach above her shoulders, but the DOT job
description required frequent reaching. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit concluded that “[i]t is not
clear to us whether the DOT’s requirements include reaching above shoulder level, and this is
exactly the sort of inconsistency the ALJ should have resolved with the expert’s help.” Id. at 736.
In contrast, here, the question is whether reaching requires use of both arms, and that question has
been conclusively resolved by case law.
13
Case No.: 13-CV-01755-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT