Alarcon v. Astrue

Filing 17

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's 15 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Administrative Law Judge's decision is affirmed. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 3/27/2013. (jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MARILYN ALARCON, 10 CASE NO. 12-CV-1719-IEG (MDD) Plaintiff, ORDER: 11 12 (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 11]; and v. 13 14 15 16 (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 15] MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Marilyn Alarcon (“Plaintiff”) seeks review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for social security benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting the Court reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and order the payment of benefits, or remand for further proceedings. [Doc. No. 11.] The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 15.] The motions raise a single issue: whether the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) determination that Plaintiff could perform her past work was based on legal error or was unsupported by substantial evidence. [Doc. Nos. 11, 15.] For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. -1- 12cv1719 1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 On April 19 and 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed applications for social security 3 disability benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the 4 Social Security Act. [Administrative Record (“AR”) at 40, 178-82.] Her 5 application was denied both initially and on reconsideration. [AR at 40.] On March 6 10, 2011, Plaintiff appeared at a hearing before an ALJ. [AR at 56-93.] Plaintiff 7 was represented by counsel and testified on her own behalf. A VE also testified. 8 [AR at 57-58.] On July 13, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision determining that 9 Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. [AR at 37- 10 49.] On February 9, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. 11 [AR at 6-8.] Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 12 405(g) on July 11, 2012. [Doc. No. 1, Compl.] BACKGROUND 13 14 A. Hearing Testimony 15 Plaintiff first testified about her basic biographical information, including date 16 of birth, education, and citizenship. [AR at 59-61.] Plaintiff then testified about her 17 work history and described her duties at each job. [Id. at 62-73.] The ALJ 18 subsequently asked Plaintiff why she could not currently work, and Plaintiff 19 responded by discussing various ailments that she stated prevent her from working, 20 including pain in her hands, shoulders, and neck. [Id. at 76-81, 84.] Plaintiff next 21 discussed the household activities that she was unable to perform due to her 22 ailments. [Id. at 81-84.] 23 The ALJ then received testimony from the vocational expert (“VE”). The 24 ALJ first confirmed that the VE was familiar with the exhibits and that she heard 25 Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her work history. [Id. at 88.] He then requested that 26 if the VE has any differences of opinion with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles 27 (“DOT”) during her testimony, that she explain her reasons. [Id. at 89.] The ALJ 28 asked the VE to hypothetically assume Plaintiff’s characteristics and limitations, -2- 12cv1719 1 including her inability to reach or work above shoulder height with either of her 2 extremities. The ALJ asked the VE if Plaintiff, with those limitations, is able to 3 return to any of her past relevant work. The VE answered that Plaintiff is able to 4 perform her past relevant work as an assembler, printed circuit boards (“assembler”) 5 both as actually done and as generally done in the national economy. [Id. at 48, 90- 6 91.] Plaintiff’s attorney did not challenge any of the VE’s responses or opinions 7 during the hearing. [Id. at 92.] 8 B. 9 ALJ’s Decision The ALJ ultimately found that Plaintiff was not disabled. [AR at 47-49.] The 10 ALJ first found that Plaintiff had the following impairments which in combination 11 are considered “severe” under the Social Security Act and regulations: breast 12 cancer, status post right masectomy and chemotherapy but not radiation in 13 November 2002, without metastasis or recurrence; Stage IIB melanoma, status post 14 excision of lesion on right buttock in November 2008, without metastasis or 15 recurrence; remote viral cardiomyopathy in December 2001, without persisting 16 congestive heart failure; non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, well controlled; 17 tendinitis, both shoulders; flexor tendinitis, both thumbs; borderline carpal tunnel 18 syndrome, right hand, and possible diabetic sensory neuropathy in both hands, per 19 electrodiagnostic testing in September 2010; and osteopenia in the hips but not the 20 spine. [Id. at 43.] 21 The ALJ then found that these impairments did not meet or medically equal a 22 listed impairment. [Id.] The ALJ next determined that Plaintiff had the residual 23 functional capacity to perform work activity at, inter alia, the sedentary exertional 24 level, with some limitations, including no reaching or working above shoulder 25 height with either upper extremity. [Id.] Finally, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff 26 could perform her previous job as an assembler, both as actually and generally done. 27 [Id. at 48.] The ALJ concluded that because Plaintiff could return to her job as an 28 assembler, Plaintiff is not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act. -3- 12cv1719 1 2 [Id. at 41, 48-49.] STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act allows unsuccessful applicants to 4 seek judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 5 This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s benefits decision and 6 “shall have the power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a 7 judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with 8 or without remanding the case for a hearing.” Id. The Commissioner’s denial of 9 benefits will only be disturbed if the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or are 10 not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 11 (9th Cir. 2001). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a 12 preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 13 adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 459 (internal quotations omitted). 14 “Whether substantial evidence supports a finding is determined from the record as a 15 whole, with the court weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that 16 detracts from the ALJ's conclusion. . . . When the evidence can rationally be 17 interpreted in more than one way, the court must uphold the Commissioner’s 18 decision.” Id. (internal citation omitted). 19 20 DISCUSSION Plaintiff contests the ALJ’s determination that she is not disabled, and argues 21 that the ALJ committed reversible error when he found that Plaintiff can perform her 22 past work because it “requires functional capacity beyond the ALJ’s assessed 23 residual functional capacity.” [Doc. No. 11-1, Pl.’s Mot. at 2.] More specifically, 24 Plaintiff argues that there is a conflict between the VE’s testimony and the job 25 description in the DOT. Plaintiff argues that the VE erroneously stated that Plaintiff, 26 who is unable to reach above shoulder height, could perform the job of assembler 27 when the DOT classification stated that it requires the ability to reach frequently. 28 [Id. at 5-11.] Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ’s reliance on the VE’s testimony -4- 12cv1719 1 was improper because he did not question the VE’s alleged deviation from the DOT. 2 [Id.] 3 An ALJ is permitted to rely on both the DOT and a VE’s testimony. Social 4 Security Ruling (“SSR”) 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *2 (Dec. 4, 2000) (citing 20 5 C.F.R. 404.1566(d); 20 C.F.R. 416.966(d); 20 C.F.R. 404.1566(e); 20 C.F.R. 6 416.966(e)). The Social Security Administration “rel[ies] primarily on the DOT . . . 7 for information about the requirements of work in the national economy.” SSR 00- 8 4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *2. The Social Security Administration also recognizes 9 that a VE “may be able to provide more specific information about jobs or 10 11 occupations than the DOT.” Id. at *3. SSR 00-4p states that “[w]hen a VE . . . provides evidence about the 12 requirements of a job or occupation, the adjudicator has an affirmative responsibility 13 to ask about any possible conflict between that VE . . . evidence and information 14 provided in the DOT.” SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *4. SSR 00-4p states that 15 the adjudicator has the responsibility to ask the VE “if the evidence he or she has 16 provided conflicts with information provided in the DOT” and to “obtain a 17 reasonable explanation” if there is an “apparent conflict.” Id. In light of SSR 00-4p, 18 the Ninth Circuit held that an ALJ may not “rely on a [VE]’s testimony regarding the 19 requirements of a particular job without first inquiring whether the testimony 20 conflicts with the [DOT].” Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 21 2007). If there is a conflict, “[n]either the DOT nor the VE . . . evidence 22 automatically ‘trumps’ . . . .” Id. “The adjudicator must resolve [a] conflict by 23 determining if the explanation given by the VE . . . is reasonable and provides a 24 basis for relying on the VE . . . testimony rather than on the DOT information.” Id. 25 The Court finds persuasive cases which on facts similar to the present case 26 determined that a VE’s more specific testimony did not conflict with a generalized 27 DOT classification. See, e.g., Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2000); Johnson 28 v. Astrue, 2011 WL 6132255, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2011) (finding that -5- 12cv1719 1 Plaintiff’s restriction for overhead reaching did not preclude him from a job where 2 the DOT classification, which mentioned frequent lifting, did not explicitly mention 3 overhead reaching); Rerkphuritat v. Astrue, 2011 WL 5221883, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 4 Nov. 2, 2011) (finding no conflict with the VE’s testimony that the plaintiff, who 5 had limitations on reaching with his right extremity, could perform a job where the 6 DOT classification, which stated that the job required frequent reaching, did not 7 state that the job required the ability to reach with both hands); Espinosa v. Astrue, 8 2008 WL 1833546, at *10-11 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008) (finding that substantial 9 evidence supported the ALJ’s decision because “[a]lthough the ALJ did not 10 expressly ask whether the positions identified were consistent with the DOT 11 classifications, the VE’s testimony demonstrates that she took into account the 12 reaching restrictions”); but see Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 736 (7th Cir. 13 2006) (holding that the ALJ should have resolved an inconsistency with the VE’s 14 testimony when it was unclear whether the DOT description, which included 15 frequent reaching, required reaching above shoulder level). 16 In Carey, the Fifth Circuit found that there was no conflict between the VE’s 17 testimony and the DOT on facts similar to the instant case. 230 F.3d 131. The DOT 18 descriptions for the jobs in question stated that they required some ability to finger 19 and handle things. The VE presented testimony that the plaintiff could perform 20 these jobs despite only having one hand. Id. at 145-46. The Fifth Circuit held that 21 because the DOT did not specifically require bilateral fingering ability or dexterity, 22 there was no conflict between the DOT and the VE’s testimony. Id. at 146. The 23 Fifth Circuit stated that the purported conflict raised by the plaintiff “actually 24 reduce[d] to a factual disagreement about whether a person with one arm can 25 perform a job requiring some degree of manual dexterity and fingering.” Id. at 146. 26 The Fifth Circuit noted that the plaintiff did not cross-examine the VE regarding her 27 testimony and held that a plaintiff “should not be permitted to scan the record for 28 implied or unexplained conflicts between the specific testimony of an expert witness -6- 12cv1719 1 and the voluminous provisions of the DOT, and then present that conflict as 2 reversible error, when the conflict was not deemed sufficient to merit adversarial 3 development in the administrative hearing.” Id. at 146-47. The Carey Court 4 declined to reverse the Commissioner’s determination because the VE’s testimony 5 was adequate to support the ALJ’s decision. Id. at 147. 6 The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Carey is persuasive, in light of its similarities 7 to the instant case. The ALJ’s decision in the present case to not ask the VE for a 8 reasonable explanation was rational and based on proper legal standards as the VE’s 9 testimony that Plaintiff, despite her inability to reach above her shoulder, is able to 10 perform the job of assembler, is not in conflict with the DOT’s more general 11 description of this job. See SSR-004p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *3-4. The DOT’s 12 description for Plaintiff’s relevant past work only states that the job in question 13 requires frequent reaching, and not frequent reaching above the shoulder. See 14 DICOT 726.684-110 (“Reaching: Frequently - Exists from 1/3 to 2/3 of the time”). 15 Therefore, the ALJ did not commit legal error by not asking the VE for a reasonable 16 explanation. See SSR-004p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *4. 17 The Court respectfully declines to adopt the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in 18 Prochaska in the instant case. VE testimony that supplements a DOT description is 19 not necessarily inconsistent with the DOT under SSR 00-4p. See SSR 00-4p, 2000 20 WL 1898704, at *3-4; Prochaska, 454 F.3d at 736. SSR 00-4p provides several 21 illustrations of when VE testimony conflicts with information in the DOT. For 22 example, SSR 00-4p states that if the DOT describes an occupation as involving 23 “medium” work, an adjudicator may not rely on VE testimony that the occupation is 24 “light” work. SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *3. SSR 00-4p also states VE 25 “evidence may not be relied upon to establish that unskilled work involves complex 26 duties that take many months to learn, because that is inconsistent with the 27 regulatory definition of unskilled work.” Id. Here, there is no such inconsistency. 28 The DOT description for assembler, which states that the job requires the ability to -7- 12cv1719 1 reach frequently, does not conflict with the VE’s testimony that Plaintiff, who could 2 not reach above shoulder height, could perform this job. Rather, the VE was aware 3 of Plaintiff’s specific limitation, and provided particularized testimony, taking into 4 account that limitation, about the job of assembler to supplement the DOT 5 description. 6 Furthermore, the ALJ properly relied on the VE’s testimony to determine 7 whether Plaintiff could perform her past work as an assembler in light of her residual 8 functional capacity because there was no apparent conflict between the DOT and the 9 VE’s testimony. The ALJ posed hypothetical questions to the VE, asking her if an 10 individual with the same characteristics, including not being able to “reach[] or 11 work[] above shoulder height with either of her extremities,” would be able to 12 perform Plaintiff’s relevant past work. The VE answered yes. [AR at 90-92.] 13 Therefore, her testimony reflects that she took into account Plaintiff’s residual 14 functional capacity of not being able to reach above shoulder height. Additionally, 15 Plaintiff’s counsel neither challenged the VE’s answer during the hearing, nor 16 provided any explanation regarding why Plaintiff could not perform her work as an 17 assembler. [Id. at 92.] Furthermore, when Plaintiff described her work as an assembler during her 18 19 testimony, she notably did not state that her job duties included reaching above 20 shoulder height. [See AR at 64-66 (mentioning the following as elements of her 21 relevant past work: pushing parts onto the PC board by hand; sitting, or choosing to 22 stand; not requiring soldering; not requiring getting the necessary parts; working at a 23 table, rather than a conveyor belt; and stamping PC boards).] Accordingly, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff can perform the relevant 24 25 past work despite her inability to reach above shoulder height is based on substantial 26 evidence and free of legal error. 27 /// 28 /// -8- 12cv1719 CONCLUSION 1 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary 3 judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 4 The ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: March 27, 2013 ______________________________ IRMA E. GONZALEZ United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- 12cv1719

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?