Aden v. Berryhill

Filing 19

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), the decision of the Commissioner is reversed.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings f or a development of the record with regard to Plaintiffs inability to read and write English, how this inability relates to Plaintiffs severe impairments, and what, if any effect it has on Plaintiffs ability to engage in gainful employment. A separate judgment is entered this same date. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 9/28/18. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RAMLO ADEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

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

No. 4:17CV1972 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court, pursuant to the Social Security Act (“the
Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq., authorizing judicial review of the final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security denying Title XVI application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) . For the reasons discussed below, the
Commissioner's decision is reversed and this matter will be remanded.
The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could perform her past work and could also
perform other jobs in the national economy with the limitations the ALJ found
based on credible evidence.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ incorrectly found Plaintiff was not disabled
because she did not take into consideration Plaintiff’s inability to read and speak
English, a factor to be considered in considering a claimant’s education.
Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that the Vocational Expert’s opinion, which
Plaintiff claims is based solely on the DOT job categories, does not take into
consideration Plaintiff’s inability to read and write English.
Defendant counters Plaintiff’s argument by asserting that the VE’s opinion
is based, not solely on the DOT classifications of jobs, but on her own
qualifications as a vocational expert and she relied on those qualifications,
experience, training, and expertise in reaching her conclusions. Defendant also
argues that the VE knew that Plaintiff could not read or write English because of
the interpreter. Both of these arguments are unsupported by any evidence in the
record; they are merely attempted explanations in an attempt to justify the ALJ’s
conclusion that Plaintiff is able to perform her past jobs, and other jobs in the
national economy. If these explanations are accurate, there must be evidence in the
record to support them.
In her decision, the ALJ pointed out that Plaintiff’s previous jobs were with
other Somali women, which may or may not have factored into Plaintiff’s ability to
maintain the jobs; even though Plaintiff could not read or speak English, the other

2

women may have helped her perform her job functions. The record does not
develop this one way or the other.
The Court concludes that based on the entire record, there are too many
suppositions, assumptions and unsupported conclusions. The ALJ did not factor
into her decision the fact that Plaintiff cannot speak or write English, and how this
fact, in conjunction with her severe impairments of headaches, a psychotic disorder
not otherwise specified, also defined as an undifferentiated schizophrenia, and a
personality disorder, affected Plaintiff’s ability to work. As such, the matter will
be remanded.
Conclusion
Accordingly
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. '
405(g), the decision of the Commissioner is reversed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the
Commissioner for further proceedings for a development of the record with regard
to Plaintiff’s inability to read and write English, how this inability relates to
Plaintiff’s severe impairments, and what, if any effect it has on Plaintiff’s ability to

3

engage in gainful employment.
A separate judgment is entered this same date.
Dated this 28th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4