Jackson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Opinion and Order: We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Signed on 5/31/2017 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
SHAUNA MICHELE JACKSON,
Civ. No. 1:16-cv-00216-MC
OPINION AND ORDER
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Plaintiff Shauna Jackson brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for disability insurance benefits (DIB)
under Title II of the Social Security Act and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The Court has
jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). For the reasons stated below, the
Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings to (1) resolve the
conflict between Ms. Jackson’s limitations and the occupational demands; and (2) assess the
severity of Ms. Jackson’s bunion and incorporate findings into her RFC
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits on March 2, 2004, alleging
disability beginning January 12, 2004. Tr. 199. Plaintiff’s application was denied, and she
requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Tr. 217-232. A hearing was held
on November 9, 2006 (Tr. 189), and on April 23, 2007, the ALJ issued a decision finding
plaintiff was not disabled. Tr. 186. On June 18, 2009, the Appeals Council denied Ms. Jackson’s
request for review. Tr. 16. Ms. Jackson appealed the final decision of the Commissioner to the
United States District Court and the ALJ’s decision was remanded. Tr. 1108, 1465. On
December 14, 2011, Ms. Jackson appeared before ALJ Lazuran for a second hearing. Tr. 1449.
On March 30, 2012, ALJ Lazuran issued a Partially Favorable Decision, finding Plaintiff
disabled on November 5, 2009. Tr. 1450. Ms. Jackson appealed the Partially Favorable Decision,
and on September 18, 2013, the Appeals Council remanded the ALJ’s decision. Tr. 1465. On
August 12, 2014, Ms. Jackson appeared before ALJ Michaelsen. Tr. 1101. On November 7,
2014, ALJ Michaelsen issued an Unfavorable Decision, upholding Plaintiff’s onset date. Tr.
1098. On January 7, 2015, Ms. Jackson appealed this decision to the Appeals Council. Tr. 1095.
The Appeals Council denied Ms. Jackson’s request for review. Tr. 1089. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The reviewing court shall affirm the Commissioner’s decision if the decision is based on
proper legal standards and the legal findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Batson v. Comm’r for Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.
2004). “Substantial evidence is ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”
Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978,
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
980 (9th Cir. 1997)). To determine whether substantial evidence exists, this Court reviews the
administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and that which
detracts from the ALJ’s conclusion. Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986).
The Commissioner's findings are upheld if supported by inferences reasonably drawn
from the record; if evidence exists to support more than one rational interpretation, the court
must defer to the Commissioner's decision. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193; Aukland v. Massanari, 257
F.3d 1033, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2000) (when evidence can rationally be interpreted in more than
one way, the court must uphold the Commissioner's decision). A reviewing court, however,
“cannot affirm the Commissioner's decision on a ground that the Administration did not invoke
in making its decision.” Stout v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2006)
(citation omitted). A court may not reverse an ALJ's decision on account of an error that is
harmless. Id. at 1055–56. “[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon
the party attacking the agency's determination.” Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009).
The Social Security Administration uses a five step sequential evaluation to determine
whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920. The initial burden of proof rests
upon the claimant to meet the first four steps. If claimant satisfies his or her burden with respect
to the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
At step five, the Commissioner’s burden is to demonstrate the claimant is capable of making an
adjustment to other work after considering the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age,
education, and work experience. Id.
Here we address step five of the most recent Unfavorable Decision that maintained the
disability onset date of November 5, 2009, but not before. The ALJ determined that Ms. Jackson
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
was not disabled before that date because she was able to perform the representative occupation
of surveillance system monitor. (DOT# 379.367-010). Tr. 1106.
Plaintiff argues this job is incompatible with Ms. Jackson’s RFC because her RFC does
not include Level 3 Reasoning. Pl.’s Br. 4, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff points to the Ninth Circuit
holding that “there is an apparent conflict between the residual functional capacity to perform
simple, repetitive tasks, and the demands of Level 3 Reasoning.” Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842
(9th Cir. 2015). Here, while the ALJ limited Ms. Jackson to simple, routine tasks (Tr. 1105) the
representative occupation of surveillance system monitor requires level 3 reasoning. Dictionary
of Occupational Titles. Plaintiff is requesting relief in the form of either a remand to resolve this
apparent conflict or a remand for immediate payment of benefits.
The Commissioner concedes that there is a conflict between the RFC and the ability to
perform the surveillance system monitor job as well as other jobs at step five, and requests
remand so that further vocational testimony may be taken to resolve the conflict. Def.’s Br. 4-5,
ECF No. 16.
In Zavalin v. Colvin, the Court wrote that “when there is an apparent conflict between the
vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT—for example, expert testimony that a claimant can
perform an occupation involving DOT requirements that appear more than the claimant can
handle—the ALJ is required to reconcile the inconsistency.” Zavalin, 778 F.3d. 842, 846 (9th
Cir. 2015) citing Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2007). The ALJ must ask
the expert to explain the conflict and then determine whether the vocational expert’s explanation
for the conflict is reasonable. Id. Failure to do so may result in a gap in the record that precludes
a court from determining whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Id.
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
I find that the ALJ failed to resolve the conflict and did not ask the vocational expert to
explain why a person of Ms. Jackson’s limitation could nevertheless meet the demands of the
occupation of surveillance system monitor.
The decision whether to remand for further proceedings or for immediate payment of
benefits generally turns on the likely utility of further proceedings. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d
1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2000). When “the record has been fully developed and further
administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the district court should remand for
an immediate award of benefits.” Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004). I find
that the record has not been fully developed considering the absence of the necessary expert
Plaintiff also argues that only the representative occupation of surveillance monitor
should be considered on remand. Pl.’s Reply Br. 2, ECF No. 17. Upon close review of the
record, I find that it cannot be established that surveillance monitor was identified as the only job
plaintiff could do. Tr. 1976-1988. The case is remanded for further proceedings to allow the ALJ
to resolve the conflict between occupational demands and plaintiff’s established RFC for that
Plaintiff has raised two other issues. As to the first, I find that the district court reached a
prior decision and found that the ALJ properly discounted Tatturo Ogisu’s assessment which
precludes this court, under the “law of the case” doctrine, from reconsidering the issue. Thomas
v. bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993). The district court’s prior decision discussed and ruled
on Dr. Ogisu’s assessment of plaintiff’s reaching limitation as well as her exertional limitations.
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
Second, because substantial evidence in the record shows that Ms. Jackson’s bunions
caused more than minimal effect on her ability to work for more than 12 months, I find the ALJ
erred by failing to properly assess the severity of Ms. Jackson’s bunions. The ALJ’s decision is
remanded to allow the ALJ to assess the severity of Ms. Jackson’s bunion and incorporate the
ALJ’s findings into Ms. Jackson’s RFC.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of May, 2017.
______/s/Michael J. McShane_______
Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge
6 - OPINION AND ORDER
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?