Nava v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER. The ALJ's finding that plaintiff was not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings. See formal OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 10/6/2015 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

CARI LEANNE NAVA,

Case No. 3:14-cv-01348-AA

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

Merrill Schneider
Schneider Kerr Law Offices
P.O. Box 14490
Portland, OR 97293
Attorney for plaintiff
S. Amanda Marshall
United States Attorney
Ronald K. Silver
Assistant United States Attorney
1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
Lars J. Nelson
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
1961 Stout St., Ste. 4169
Denver, CO 80294-4003
Attorneys for defendant
OPINION AND ORDER - 1

OPINION AND ORDER

AIKEN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff brings this action seeking judicial review of a
final

decision

Administration

of

the

(the

Commissioner

Commissioner)

of

denying her

supplemental security income benefits
the Social Security Act
under 42 U.S.C.
below,

the

(the Act).

( SSI)

Social

Security

applications

for

under Title XVI of

This Court has

jurisdiction

405(g) and 1383(c) (3). For the reasons stated

§§

the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded for

further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
On August 24, 2010, plaintiff filed an application for SSI;
it

was

102.

denied

On

initially and
19,

Decemb~r

on

2 012,

reconsideration.

plaintiff

and

a

Tr.

151,

vocational

92,

expert

appeared and testified before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
Tr.

40-71.

On

January

finding plaintiff not
Tr.

27-35. On June 17,

31,

2013,

the

ALJ

issued

a

decision

disabled within the meaning of the Act.
2014,

the Appeals Council denied review,

rendering the ALJ' s decision as the final agency decision.

Tr.

1-6. Plaintiff now seeks judicial review.
Plaintiff was
decision,
equivalency

with

f~fty-six

some

diploma

last 10 years.

Tr.

high
(GED),

44,

OPINION AND ORDER - 2

years old at the time of the ALJ's
school
and

45-46,

past

48-52,

education,
relevant
61-62.

a
work

high

school

within

the

Plaintiff initially

claimed her disability began in December 2007,
alleged

onset

date

disability due

to

to

August

various

2010.

physical

Tr.

27.

but amended her

Plaintiff

and mental

alleges

limitations.

Tr.

179.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is
based on proper legal
by

substantial

F. 2d

4 98,

than

a

501

mere

(9th

in

Cir.

scintilla.

conclusion."
(citation

evidence

mind

reasonable

standards

might

v.

such

quotations

supports

and

conclusions." Martinez v.

Heckler,

from

807

interpretations

400 F.3d 676,

In

"more
as

support
401

a
a

(1971)

reviewing

the

the

[Commissioner's]
772

(9th Cir.

evidence

the

interpretation is

679

is

879

weigh "both the

F.2d 771,

of

if the Commissioner's

Burch v. Barnhart,

389,

Court must

detracts

Bowen,

evidence
to

U.S.

omitted).

this

supported

evidence

relevant

402

are
v.

adequate

as

Perales,

evidence

insignificant

Substantial

accept

internal

Variable

Hammock

means

alleged errors,

198 6) .

record.

the

Commissioner's
that

findings

198 9) .
It

Richardson

and

and the

are

rational.

(9th Cir. 2005).

COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
The
pursuant
Yuckert,

ALJ
to

evaluated
the

482 U.S.

plaintiff's

relevant
137,

OPINION AND ORDER - 3

140

sequential
(1987);

allegation
process.

20 C.F.R.

§

of
See

disability
Bowen

416.920.

v.

At step

one,

the

ALJ

"substantial

found

gainful

activity"

disability. Tr. 29; 20 C.F.R.
At

step

two,

determinable

plaintiff

that

the

ALJ

impairments

§

during

had
the

not

engaged

period

of

in

alleged

416.920(b).

found
of

that

plaintiff had medically

asthma/emphysema,

depression,

borderline personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder,
and non-severe impairment of hepatitis C. Tr. 29-30; 20 C.F.R.
416.920(c). At step three,
did not meet
that

the

or

equal

the ALJ found that these impairments

"one of a

[Commissioner]

number of listed impairments

acknowledges

are

preclude gainful activity." Tr. 30; 20 C.F.R.
The
capacity

ALJ

then

(RFC)

determined

and

found

§

plaintiff's

that

plaintiff

perform light work with some restrictions.
found that plaintiff could remember,

so
§

severe

to

416.920(d).

residual
retained
Tr.

as

functional
the

RFC

to

31. The ALJ also

understand,

and carry out

instructions or tasks generally required by occupations with a
specific vocational preparation
§§

(SVP)

of 1-4. Tr.

31;

20 C.F.R.

416.920 (e), 416.967 (b).
At

step

four,

the

ALJ took

into

account

the

plaintiff's

work history and her ability to function with certain symptoms
while

continuing to work in previous positions.

Tr.

35.

Thus,

the ALJ found that plaintiff was capable of performing her past
relevant work as a receptionist,
OPINION AND ORDER - 4

general office clerk,

and data

entry

Tr.

clerk.

Therefore,

the

35;

ALJ

20

found

C.F.R.

416.920(f),

§§

plaintiff

not

disabled

416.965.
under

the

meaning of the Act and did not proceed to step five. Tr. 35.
DISCUSSION

Plaintiff
discounting

argues

that

plaintiff's

making step four

the

ALJ

subjective

findings

erred
symptom

by:

1)

improperly

testimony;

and

2)

unsupported by substantial evidence.

Pl.'s Br. 5.
I.

Plaintiff's Credibility
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to articulate a clear

and

convincing

rejecting
extent

her

reason,

supported by

subjective

symptom

substantial
statements

evidence,

for

concerning

the

and severity of her arm injury and mental

impairments.

Pl.'s Br. 5.
Plaintiff
unable

to

cut

and

her

with

a

daughter
knife,

use

asserted
tongs,

that

plaintiff

grasp with

her

was
right

hand, lift objects, write, or use a computer, and that plaintiff
suffered from depression symptoms,

had difficulty reaching,

and

dropped items frequently. Tr. 62, 65, 204, 208-09, 231.
When a plaintiff has medically documented impairments that
could

reasonably

be

expected

symptoms complained of,
evidence

of

malingering,

OPINION AND ORDER - 5

to

produce

some

degree

of

the

and the record contains no affirmative
"the

ALJ

can

reject

the

claimant's

testimony

about

specific,

clear and convincing reasons for doing so." Smolen v.

Chater,

80

the

severity

F.3d 1273,

1281

of

symptoms

(9th Cir.

only

1996)

by

offering

(internal citation

omitted). A general assertion that the plaintiff is not credible
is insufficient;
credible

and

the ALJ must "state which ... testimony is not

what

evidence

suggests

the

credible." Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915,

complaints
918

are

not

(9th Cir. 1993).

The reasons proffered must be "sufficiently specific to permit
the reviewing court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily
discredit the claimant's testimony." Orteza v.
748, 750 (9th Cir. 1995)
In

assessing

Shalala,

50 F.3d

(internal citation omitted).

credibility,

the

ALJ

may

review

the

plaintiff's daily activities and the observations of physicians
and third parties with personal knowledge about the plaintiff's
functional
also

limitations.

consider

failure
doctors,

to

Smolen,

inconsistent

follow a

80

F.3d

at

course of treatment

Molina v.

The ALJ may

or unexplained plaintiff testimony,
or recommendations

evidence of self-limiting behaviors,

work history.

1284.

Astrue,

674

of

and a plaintiff's

F.3d 1104,

1112

(9th Cir.

2012); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F. 3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002).
The ALJ found plaintiff not credible for several reasons.
First,

the

ALJ

found

that

the

plaintiff's

testimony

was

not

"reasonably consistent" with the medical evidence. Tr. 32. While
OPINION AND ORDER - 6

an

ALJ

cannot

solely

on

reject

the

nonetheless

look

the

lack
to

of
the

severity

of

objective
medical

subjective

evidence,

record

for

complaints

the

ALJ

may

inconsistencies.

Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599-600

(9th

Cir. 1999). A contradiction with medical records is a sufficient
basis

for

rejecting

the

plaintiff's

subjective

testimony,

Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995).
Specifically,
plaintiff's

the

ALJ

arm injury was

noted

objective

one

medical

provided from a

Labor and Industry claim form.
other

only

indication

Tr.

of

283.

2008

record

of

Department of

The ALJ noted that no

persistent

pain

or

long-term

damage to plaintiff's arm was documented in any of plaintiff's
follow-up medical evaluations. Tr.
414,

417,

Eder' s

455,

2011

460,

469,

opinion

471,

found

347, 353, 372,

405,

473. As the ALJ noted,

that

there

was

no

408,

Dr. Sharon

indication

right arm problem beyond a "non-severe" impairment.

410,

Tr.

35,

of

a

81-

88.
Additionally,

the

ALJ

noted

that

plaintiff's

depression

symptoms were found to be less than debilitating during multiple
evaluations.
plaintiff

was

cooperative,
Moreover,

Specifically,
found

healthy,

during

"alert,

a

in

and smiling." Tr.

2010
no
32,

assessment,

apparent
317,

the

distress,

345-346,

357.

a 2012 mental status examination by Dr. Wu found that

OPINION AND ORDER - 7

plaintiff's
with a

thought

congruent

process

affect"

was

"organized

and that

and

future

"cognition was

focused

intact."

Tr.

32, 427-429, 461-462.
The
record,

ALJ

also

lung

rhonchi",

reduction

CT

Tr.

hypertension
of

that

examinations

and

findings."

noted

chest
32,

scans

and

"no

"did

372.

not

The

diagnosis

indicate

the
or

significant
noted

also

with

on

rales

wheezes,

ALJ

"improved

were

caffeine"

asthma

revealed

365'

symptoms

despite

medication

considered plaintiff's

that
and

hypertension

as "benign and well controlled." Tr. 32, 405, 488-504.
Although plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ' s
of the medical record,

"[w] hen

interpretation

the evidence before the ALJ is

subject to more than one rational interpretation,

we must defer

to the ALJ's conclusion." Batson v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin.,
F.3d 1190,

1198

(9th Cir.

and convincing reasons,
finding

plaintiff's

2004)

Here,

the ALJ provided clear

supported by substantial evidence,
subjective

359

complaints

not

for

reasonably

consistent with the medical evidence.
Second, the ALJ found plaintiff had worked in the past with
her alleged ailments.

When a plaintiff's work history undercuts

her

ALJ

assertions,

the

discredit the plaintiff.
(9th

Cir.

2001).

may

on

that

Bruton v. Massanari,

Specifically,

OPINION AND ORDER - 8

rely

the

ALJ

contradiction
2 68 F. 3d 8 2 4,

noted

that

to
828

plaintiff

reported

working

as

a

housekeeper,

secretary,

clerk,

and

for

Goodwill Industries, even though she stated she had been treated
for depression "off and on" all of her life.
422.

Tr.

33,

57,

42 0,

The ALJ found that because plaintiff's impairments had not

prevented her from working or caused her to cease working,
"strongly

suggests

that

her

impairments

would

not

this

currently

prevent work." Tr. 33, 420-426.
Lastly,

the ALJ noted that plaintiff's full range of daily

activities were inconsistent with her subjective complaints. The
ALJ noted that plaintiff performed activities including helping
her

father

telephone,
preparing
shopping

with

paperwork,

handling
.simple
in

money,

meals,

stores,

driving,

and

socializing

mailing

performing
using

public

items

light

on

the

independently,

household

transportation.

chores,
Tr.

33,

204-11, 223-30.
Daily activities may serve as

a

basis

for

discrediting

a

plaintiff where they either "are transferable to a work setting"
or

"contradict

Molina,
conflict
variable
analysis

claims

of

a

67 4 F. 3d at 1112-13.
with

the

degree

totally
Here,
of

interpretations of this
was

nonetheless

OPINION AND ORDER - 9

impairment."

plaintiff's daily activities

disability

she

alleges.

evidence may exist,

reasonable,

upheld. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1198.

debilitating

such

that

it

While

the ALJ' s
must

be

Although the ALJ found that plaintiff's lack of compliance
with

medical

advice

detracted

from

her

credibility,

the

Commissioner does not rely on that factor. Even if the ALJ erred
in

the

evaluation

symptoms,

of

the ALJ 1 s

sufficient.

plaintiff 1 s

additional

See Carmickle v.

1155,

1161 n.2,

there

1162

remains

conclusions on

credibility'

contribution

to

reasons are nonetheless

Comm' r

(9th Cir.

'substantial

alleged

Soc.

2008)

Sec.

Admin.,

(noting that

evidence

her

legally
533

F. 3d

"so long as

supporting

the

ALJ's

the error is ... harmless and does

not warrant reversal.")
In

sum,

supported

by

the

ALJ

provided

substantial

clear

evidence,

and

for

convincing

rejecting

reasons,

plaintiff's

subjective symptom statements concerning the extent and severity
of her impairments.

As

such,

the ALJ' s

credibility finding is

affirmed.
II.

Step Four Findings
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's step four findings were not

supported by substantial
first

argues

erroneous,

that

because

the
they

evidence.
ALJ's
do

RFC
not

Pl.'s
and

Br.

step

account

5,

12.

four

for

the

Plaintiff

finding

are

functional

limitations resulting from her increased depression symptoms and
the long-term effects of her right arm injury.

OPINION AND ORDER - 10

The

RFC

limitations.
the RFC,

impairments,
of

the

a

plaintiff

404.1545,

§§

can

416.945.

those

relevant

that

medical

testimony.

are

despite

her

In determining

not

and

SSR

into

limitations

incorporated

severe,

other

96-8p,

testimony
concrete

and

translating

and

evidence,"

available

functional

the

limitations

Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174
Only

do

at

The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts

medical

impairments

the

even

plaintiff's

1996 WL 37 4184.
the

maximum

See 20 C.F.R.

"all

including

in

the

the ALJ must consider limitations imposed by all of a

plaintiff's
evaluate

is

into

supported
the

RFC

by

substantial

and,

by

in

the

RFC.

(9th Cir. 2008).

evidence

extension,

hypothetical question posed to the VE.

plaintiff's

the

Osenbrock v.

must

be

dispositive
Apfel,

2 40

F.3d 1157, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2001).
As discussed above,
plaintiff's

the ALJ did not erroneously discredit

allegations

depression symptoms.

regarding

Further,

her

arm

limitations

and

the ALJ noted several conflicting

psychological opinions regarding plaintiff's mental limitations.
In one evaluation,
moderate"
pace.

Tr.

conducted

overall
34,
by

Dr. Wicher found plaintiff had "mild to

deficits

420-426.
Dr.

objectively based,

Wicher

in

The
was

concentration,

ALJ

found

that

consistent

cognitive

with

and this portion of Dr.

OPINION AND ORDER - 11

persistence,

the

Wicher' s

and

testing

record

and

assessment

was given more weight.
Dr.

Wicher's

barriers
based

report

precluded

on

opinion

"the

of

Id. However,

indicating
her

from

plaintiff's

disability

the ALJ gave less weight to

that

plaintiff's

full-time

employment,

subjective

premised

to

a

psychological
finding

complaints."
large

extent

it

Id.

"An

upon

the

claimant's own accounts of her symptoms and limitations may be
disregarded, once those complaints have themselves been properly
discounted." Andrews v.
1995);
Cir.

Shalala,

see also Edlund v.

2 001)

53

F.3d 1035,

Massanari,

253

1043

(9th Cir.

F.3d 1152,

(claimant's provision of misinformation,

1157

(9th

unbeknownst

to a doctor, served as a legally sufficient reason for rejecting
that

doctor's

credible;

opinion).

therefore,

portion of Dr.

the

Wicher' s

Here,
ALJ

the
did

ALJ

not

found

error

opinion that was

plaintiff

in

not

rejecting

the

based on plaintiff's

subjective complaints.
The ALJ also noted that Dr.
severe

psychological

conflicting medical

Henning's assessment found "no

impairment."

Tr.

88-89.

Given

the

evidence and the credibility findings,

the

35,

ALJ did not err by failing to adopt the additional limitations
alleged by plaintiff.
As

for plaintiff's

physicians,

Drs.

Alley

impairment.

Tr.

34-35,

OPINION AND ORDER - 12

right arm complaint,
and

Eder,

73-79,

found

81-88.

no

Due

two non-examining
severe
to

the

physical
lack

of

objective

medical

evidence

of

effects of plaintiff's injury,

recurring

pain

as noted above,

or

long-lasting

the Court finds

the ALJ adequately addressed plaintiff's physical impairments in
his

RFC

assessment

by

finding

her

able

to

perform light

work

with some restrictions.
Plaintiff also challenges the ALJ's reliance on SVP ratings
in his RFC assessment.
SVP

ratings

duties

do

not

Pl.'s Br.

assess

her

and that the ALJ' s

simple tasks.

Plaintiff argues that the

ability to

findings

perform certain

constitute a

job

limitation to

Plaintiff also maintains that there is an inherent

inconsistency
ratings

12.

between

and the

her

limitation

requirement

of Level

to
3

jobs

with

SVP

1-4

Reasoning necessary

in

her past relevant work that the ALJ specified she was capable of
performing. Pl.'s Br. 12, 15.
The Dictionary of Occupational Titles

(DOT)

defines SVP as

the "amount of lapsed time required by a typical worker to learn
the

techniques,

acquire

the

information,

and

develop

the

facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker
situation." DOT,
more

time

occupation.

it
Id.

Appx.
takes
For

C,
to

§

2.

equal

example,

The higher the. SVP rating,
average
the

DOT

performance
specifies

occupation with an SVP rating of 4 generally requires

OPINION AND ORDER - 13

in
that

the
that
an

"over 3

months and up to and including 6 months" of training to equal an
average worker.

Id.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's reliance on SVP ratings 1-4
necessarily
than
has

limited

'complex'

tasks."

concluded

work,"

and

SSR 00-4P,
part,

as

her

that

SVP

occupations

Pl.'s

SVP

3-4

to

1-2

Br.

14.

ratings

ratings

with

"'simple'

However,

the

Commissioner

correspond· with

correspond

to

rather

"unskilled

"semi-skilled"

work.

2000 WL 1898704, at *3. Unskilled work is defined,
"work which needs

little

or no

judgm_e[lt

to

do

in

simple

duties that can be learned on the job in a short period of time
... and a person can usually learn to do the job in 3 0 days,

and

little specific vocational preparation and judgment are needed."
20

C.F.R.

which

needs

complex

more

than

does

skilled

not
jobs

less

unskilled

recognize

includes

Thus,

but

similarly

than
to

Semi-skilled work

Semi-s killed

which are

work

Id.

skills

duties.

fails

skilled"

~ork."

some

complex

Plaintiff

complex

416.968(a).

work

activities
but

§

"activities
work,

but

defined

require
may

doing

the

Id.

more

"work

the

more

at

are

complex

types

of

skilled work,
§

definition

which

as

require

complex than

work."

that

is

416. 968 (b) .
of

"semi-

similarly
than

less

unskilled

by limiting plaintiff to jobs with SVP ratings

of 1-4,. the ALJ did not limit plaintiff to "simple" work.

OPINION AND ORDER - 14

Furthermore,
law to

plaintiff

does

not

support her argument that

involve

"simple"

definition

of

"simple." Id.

rather

than

"semi-skilled
at

§

provide

any

jobs with SVP

"complex"

work"

416.968 (a)-(b).

does

levels

tasks.
not

binding

In

case

of

1-4

fact,

the

the

term

include

For these reasons,

the Court

finds plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive regarding a limitation
to

simple

tasks.

Accordingly,

the

Court

similarly

rejects

plaintiff's argument that her limitation to simple work renders
her incapable of meeting the demands of Reasoning Level 3 work.
Pl.'s Br. 14; Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015).
Nonetheless,
on SVP

ratings

I agree with plaintiff that the ALJ's reliance
failed

to

adequately assess

her

non-exertional

limitations and resulted in a deficient RFC. The ALJ found that
plaintiff

is

able

to

"remember,

understand

and

carry

out

instructions and tasks generally required by occupations with an
SVP 1-4." Tr.

31.

The ALJ made no other RFC findings regarding

plaintiff's limitations or ability to remember,
carry

out

findings

instructions.
regarding

persistence

or

Specifically,

plaintiff's

pace,

even

the

limitations

though

the

ALJ' s

understand,

ALJ
in

made

no

and
RFC

concentration,

decision

suggests

that plaintiff had some degree of limitation in those areas.
As

plaintiff emphasizes,

the ALJ gave

some weight

to

Dr.

Wicher's finding that plaintiff had mild to moderate limitations
OPINION AND ORDER - 15

in

concentration,

persistence,

and

limitation was included in the RFC.

pace;
Tr.

no

however,

34,

420-426.

such

Defendant

argues that while the ALJ identified these limitations noted by
Dr.

Wieber,

plaintiff's

he
RFC

did
and

incl'ude

not

therefore

the ALJ relied solely on SVP
non-exertional
whether

limitations,

the

ALJ

rejected
ratings

this

accepted

them
them.

determining

However,

because.

in assessing plaintiff's

Court

or

while

is

unable

rejected

the

to

decipher

limitations

in

concentration, persistence, and pace noted by Dr. Wieber.
The

Court

also

notes

that

in

discussing

plaintiff's

RFC,

the ALJ explicitly stated that he found sufficient evidence to
"establish

severe

identifying

the

limitations
Consequently,

impairments,

impairments

resulting
this

to

from

Court

above,"

mentioned
which
such

finds

he

referred

impairments.

the

without

RFC

or

any

Tr.

35.

insufficient

in

clarifying plaintiff's limitations.
Notwithstanding

these

deficiencies,

defendant

argues

that

the ALJ's RFC assessment should be upheld, because the ALJ's SVP
findings

limited

certification,

her

recognize

inappropriate

semi-skilled work,

and

given

her

GED

she is "presumed" to have the capacity to perform

semi-skilled work.
to

to

See Def. 's Br.

that
for

this
this

OPINION AND ORDER - 16

24.

Court's
Court

However,

role
to

is

defendant
limited;

"presume"

fails
it

findings

is·
not

articulated

by

the

ALJ.

Regardless,

ratings

SVP

of

1-4

essentially indicate a claimant's readiness to perform the full
range

of semi-skilled and unskilled work;

such ratings

do not

assess a claimant's non-exertional limitations and the record is
unclear

whether

persistence,

the

ALJ

found

limitations

in

concentration,

or pace. Thus, by relying solely on SVP ratings in

the RFC assessment,

the ALJ failed to clarify plaintiff's non-

exertional limitations.
Finally,

while the VE testified that plaintiff's past work

correlates with SVP 4, the ALJ elicited no VE testimony and made
no

findings

regarding

the

specific

duties

of

such

jobs

and

whether a claimant with plaintiff's RFC could perform them.
fact,

In

the ALJ failed to provide any hypothetical RFC to the VE.

Consequently,

the

VE

did

not

testify

that

a

claimant

with

plaintiff's RFC could perform her past relev-ant work as it was
generally performed.

Further,

the ALJ did not make findings as

to how the work was generally performed.
compared

"the

claimant's

[RFC]

with

Rather,

the

the ALJ simply

physical

and

mental

demands of this work" and found that she was "able to perform it
as actually and generally performed." Tr. 35.
Critically,
mental

and

the

physical

relevant work,

and he

OPINION AND ORDER- 17

ALJ did
demands

not

discuss

required

any
by

of

the

specific

plaintiff's

past

failed to explain how her RFC satisfied

those

specific

ratings.

Thus,

findings

to

perform her

demands,
the

ALJ

support
past

aside
failed

his

from

"to make

conclusion"

relevant

the

work.

correlation
the

requisite

that plaintiff is

Pinto

v.

with

Massanari,

SVP

factual
able
249

to

F.3d

840, 844 (9th Cir. 2001).
In sum,
by

the

the ALJ's findings at step four are not supported

record,

and

the

case

administrative proceedings.

must

On remand,

be

remanded

for

further

the ALJ shall assess the

relevant mental and non-exertional limitations of plaintiff and
provide an RFC assessment

consistent with plaintiff's

physical and mental limitations.
the

relevant

RFC

to

the VE

Further,

specific

the ALJ shall present

in an appropriate

hypothetical

to

support any findings made at step four and step five.
CONCLUSION
The ALJ' s
supported by

finding

that plaintiff was

substantial

evidence

in

the

not disabled is
record.

not

Accordingly,

the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further
proceedings.
IT IS

so

ORDERED.

DATED this

~

1V'-

GJvia»L--

day of

~eptember,

2015.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER - 18