Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00523/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00523-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I LED 

16 AUG '8 PH 3: 0 

ClE;"l(. u.s. DISTRICT IiHlUlT 

!iOufH;;I!S [;,S fillClt1f.CAlff'OlkiA 

~y' "¥ 'fY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BASIMA BAHOO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CAROL YN W. COL VIN Acting Commissioner of Social Security 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 15cv523 WQH (KSC) 

ORDER 

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) 

issued by United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford, recommending that the 

motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) filed by Plaintiff be denied and that the 

cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) filed by Defendant be granted. 

II I. BACKGROUND 

On January 18, 2012, PlaintitT filed an application for Social Security Income 

Benefits ("SS1"), alleging disability beginning on August 1, 2011. (ECF No. 10-5 at 

2-11). On February 3,2012, Plaintiffs application was denied. (ECF No. 10-4 at 2). 

On April 24, 2012, Plaintiffs request for SSI was denied on reconsideration. Id at 10. 

On June 25, 2012, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing before an 

Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). Id at 15. A hearing was held on August 12,2013. 

(ECF No.1 0-2 at 47-56). Plaintiff testified at the hearing, as did Molly Catzil, a 

- 1 15cv523 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-00523-WQH-KSC Document 20 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II vocational expert. Id. at 55-57. On August 30, 2013, the ALJ found that: 

2 II 1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 

January 9, 2012. 

3 

2. The claimant has the "severe" impairments ofleft knee conditions and 

4 
 obesity, but does not have an impairment or a combination ofimpairments that meets or equals in severity an impairment listed at Appendix 1 to 

Subpart P of Regulations no. 4. 

6 3. The claimant's allegations and those made on his behalf are credible 

only to the extent they are consistent with Finding no. 4 below. 

7 

4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity for a [sic] sedentary 8 work, and must use a cane for prolonged ambulation. 

9 5. The claimant has no past relevant work. 

6. Considering her medical/vocational profile, the claimant is "not 

disabled" under the framework of Rule 201.18 and/or 201.211201.22. 

1 1 Although the claimant cannot perform the full ranKe of unskilled light work (Que to lingual limitations ), jobs exist in signil1cant number in the 

12 national economy she can perform, including those specially identified by 

the vocational expert (eye dropper, lens inserter, and sack repairer). 13 

7. The claimant has not been under a "disability" within the meaning of 

14 the Social Security Act at any time through the date ofthis decision. 

II (ECF No.1 0-2 at 29-30). 

1611 On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a request for review of the ALI's 

17 II decision with the Appeals Council. (ECF No. 10-2 at 17-22). The Appeals Council 

18 II then denied Plaintiffs request for review, and the ALJ's decision became the final 

19 II decision ofthe Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"). Id. at 4-6. 

II On March 6, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review of the 

21 II Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No.1). 

2211 On August 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed aMotion for Summary Judgment. (ECFNo. 

23 II 13). On October 2, 2015, Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, 

2411 (ECF No. 14), and an Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF 

II No. 15). On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of her Motion for 

2611 Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 17). 

2711 On June 6,2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation. 

28 II (ECF No. 18). The Magistrate Judge stated in part, 

2- 15cv523 WQH (KSq 

Case 3:15-cv-00523-WQH-KSC Document 20 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 Substantial evidence in the Administrative Record supports the ALI's

conclusion that plaintiff has limited proficiency but is not illiterate or 

2 
 unable to communicate in English. Substantial evidence further supports 
 the ALI's conclusion that plaintiff is not disabled under the VocatIOnal 

3 
 Guidelines, even though her English language skills are limited, because 

she retains the residual functional capacIty to do sedentary work that is 

4 available in significant numbers in the regIOnal and national economies. 

II Id. at 27. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary 

6 II Judgment be denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. 

7 II On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

8 II (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions that the ALJ did 

9 II not err in finding that Plaintiff is not illiterate or unable to communicate in English, and 

II that Plaintiffs testimony is not credible. Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that this Court 

1111 should credit Bahoo's testimony as true and reverse and award benefits to Bahoo or, 

12 II in the alternative, remand this matter for further administrative proceedings. Id. at 10­

13 11. 

14 II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW 

A. District Court Review of a Report and Recommendation 

16 II The duties ofthe district court in connection with a report and recommendation 

17 II of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 

1811 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court must "make a de novo determination of those 

19 portions of the report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 

21 II 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a 

2211 report and recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 

23 II F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); Us. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th 

24 Cir. 2003 ) (en banc). 

B. Review of Denial of a Disability Claim 

2611 When an applicant's claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act 

27 II has been denied, she may seekjudicial review ofthe Commissioner's decision. See 42 

2811 U.S.C. § 405(g). Where, as in this case, "the Appeals Council denies a request for 

3 - 15cv523 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-00523-WQH-KSC Document 20 Filed 08/18/16 Page 3 of 9
1 II review of an ALJ's decision, the decision of the ALJ represents the final decision of 

211 the Commissioner." Batson v. Comm 'rofSoc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190,1193 n.l 

3 II (9th Cir. 2004 ) (citing 20 C.F .R. § 404.981). A reviewing court will reverse the ALJ's 

4 II decision only if "it is based upon legal error or is not supported by substantial 

511 evidence." Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.l (9th Cir. 2005) (citation 

6 II omitted). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

7 II accept as adequate to support a conclusion" and is "more than a mere scintilla but less 

811 than a preponderance." Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683,686 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation 

911 omitted). "Ifthe record would support more than one rational interpretation, we defer 

101\ to the ALJ's decision." Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1214 n.l (citation omitted). 

11 II III. ANALYSIS 

1211 Plaintiff does not dispute the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment 

13 1\ concluding that she is restricted to sedentary work but argues that she should be 

14 II considered "disabled" under the Vocational Guidelines because she is (1) illiterate 

15 II and/or unable to communicate in English and (2) unskilled or has no past relevant work 

1611 history. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that her testimony regarding her medical 

17 II condition should be found credible. 

18 1\ A. Determination of Plaintiff's English Language Ability 

19 In the written opinion dated August 30,2013, the ALJ stated, 

20 SSA did not categorize the claimant as illiterate or unable to communicate 

in English (Ex 2A). This conclusion is buttressed by the factors ... 21 including conflicting statements regarding her lingual abilities, her being certifiedlor and working in this country, presentatIOns to medical sources, 

22 and the ALJ's ultimate assessment of credibility.... The ALJ finds she 

is not illiterate in or unable to communicate in English. 23 

SSA utilized Rule 201 18 at A'ppendix 2 as its framework for decision24 making, which calls for a findmg of "not disabled" (Ex 2A). This Rule 

applies to an individual with no or unskilled work who is literate and able 

25 to communicate in English, but has a "limited or less" education. Since 

this claimant has an aavanced education, no Rule directly applies (given 26 her skilled work history, albeit distant, she may more closely apprOXImate Rule 201.21 or 201 22) In any event, the only sedentary worK that calls 

27 for a finding of "disabled" for an individual ages 45-49 is 201.17, 

describing an individual who is illiterate or unable to communicate in 

28 English and has no or unskilled work. This does not apply to the claimant. 

- 4- 15cv523 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-00523-WQH-KSC Document 20 Filed 08/18/16 Page 4 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9" 

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that 

"[s]ubstantial evidence in the Administrative Record supports the ALl's conclusion 

11 II 

that plaintiff has limited proficiency but is not illiterate or unable to communicate in 

1211 

13 " English." (ECF No. 18 at 27). The Magistrate Judge explained, 

Assuming arguendo that the ALJ classified the claimant as illiterate or 

unable to communicate in English, she would still shy from Rule 201.17. 

This contemplates an individual with only adverse vocational factors and 

not the type of history and experience thIS claimant possesses. Although the claimant reportedly last performed nursing work In Iraq slightly more 

than 15 years ago, she obviously has skills that place her In better stead 

than an Indiviaual who has never worked or lias only done unskilled 

work. Additionally, the claimant has recent education and employment in 

this country (at least semi-skilled) that, though arguably not relevant 

work, clearly Rlaces her in better position to work than an individual with 

no or unskillea work The claimant did in fact work in this country, failing in this greater than sedentary job only because of her knee problems. Given these circumstances, tHe ALJ would utilize Rules 201.21 or 20 1.22, 

not Rule 201.17. 

(ECF No. 10-2 at 28-29). 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

First, the record includes the Disability Report- Field Office, which was 

completed on January 18, 2012 as a result of a face-to-face interview 

between plaintiff and an interviewer identified as "H. Aguirre." [Doc. No. 

10-6, at p. 3-4]. In the Observations section ofthe Disability R~port, the 

interviewer inaicated plaintiff was coherent and did not have difficulty hearing, reading, breathing understanding, concentrating, talking-i answering, seeing, using her hands, or writing. [Doc. No.1 0-6, at p. 3.J 

In pertinent part, the form in the record entitled Disability Report - Adult 

inc1udes the following questions and responses: 1. G Can you speak and understand English? Yes. 

If"No", what language do you prefer? {No response.] Ify.ou cannot sReak and understand Eng ish, we will provide 

an Interpreter, free of charge.

1. H Can you read and understand English? No 

2. F Who.is cplf1pleting this report? The person who is applying for dIsabIlIty. 

[Doc. No. 10-6, at p.5.] 

Next, the record also includes a Work History R~ort form that was 

completed by hand and signed on January 28, 2012. [Doc. No.1 0-6, at pp. 

2-17.] The responses are written in simple English using the first Rerson, 

indicating plaintiff filled the form out -herself and has a basic ability to 

read, write, and follow simp'le instructions in English. For example, the 

form states: "List all ofthe jobs that you had in the 15 years before you became unable to work because ofyour illnesses, injuries, or conditions." 

[Doc. No.1 0-6, at p. 14,] The hanClwritten responses states that plaintiff 

worked in a hospital as a nurse from 1982 to 1995 and worked at home 

taking care of children in 2011. Referring to the job in child care, the 

response goes on to state in part as follows: "I stop' working I cant too 

much pain in all my body. 1m very happy with this job I dont have kids 

- 5 - 15cv523 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-00523-WQH-KSC Document 20 Filed 08/18/16 Page 5 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

put[sic1 1m very sick I cant do anything when have cancer all time ..." 

lDoc. No. 10-6, at p. 14] 

At the hearing before the ALJ, the record shows plaintiffwas assisted by

an interPreter. [Doc. No. 10-2, at p. 25] ... As outlined above, there are 

a numoer of notations in medical notes made by p'laintiff s doctors 

indicating she communicated with them through an interPreter during medical appointments. On the other hand, there are a numoer ofmedical 

notes that do not include any such notations. Although two ofplaintiffs doctors wrote letters about .plaintiffs "lingual abilIties" in connection 

with her claim for disability oenefitshthe.x,.are not very helpful. Dr. Eve's 

letters says plaintiffhas "poor Englis ." l Uoc. No. I 0-7~ at p. 180.] It does 

not indicate plaintiff cannot communicate at all in EnglIsh. Likewise, Dr. 

Held's letter only states that plaintiff "appears unable to speak or read 

English." [Doc. No. 10-7, at p. 181 (empliasis added).] ... 

911 Id. at 21-23. 

Addressing Plaintiffs arguments in support of her Motion for Summary 

11 Judgment, the Magistrate Judge explained, 

12 Plaintiffs arguments are unconvincing, because they are unsupp.0rted and/or contraaicted by the record. There is only one form from the initial 

13 application process tnat includes a notation indicating it was completed I2Y someone other than plaintiff. This is the Disabifity Report - Field 

14 Office, which was completed by a face-to-face interviewer on or about 

January 18 2012, at the time plaintiff was completing the initial 

p'aperwork for her application. [Doc. No. 10-6, at p. 3.1 As noted above, 

the interviewer indIcated plaintiff did not have any difficulty hearing, 16 reading understanding, ta1king answering, or writing. [Doc. No. 10-6, at 1 	

p. 3.] Although j the form inc udes space for observations and other 

17 comments, the interviewer did not in any way indicate there was any language barrier during the interview. [Doc. No. 10-6, at p.3] There is no 

18 other evidence in the record to prove with any degree of certainty that 

plaintiff was unable to complete the forms on her own or that someone 

19 	 else completed the forms for her because she was unable to do so. Nor 

would it be appropriate for the Court to consider evidence on this issue 

that is outside the administrative record. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Baker v. 

Barnhart, 457 F.3d 882, 891 (8th Cir. 2006). 

21 

In sum, there was conflicting evidence in the record regarding plaintiffs 22 	 ability to understand, speak, read, and write in English. However, it was 

the ALl's duty to resolve any conflicts in the evidence and to make 

23 	 determinations aboutcredibi!il}'. Connettv. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871,873 

(9th Cir. 2003)' Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 1156 (9th Cir. 

24 	 2001). The ALi's decision indicates that she considered all relevant and 

probative evidence and appropriately resolved the conflict. For the 

reasons outlined more fully above, it is further ap'parent that the ALJ had 

reason to doubt plaintiffs credibility. The evidence in the record is 

26 consistent with a finding that plaintiff has basic literacy and 

communication skills in English, but she prefers to use a translator when 

27 she must communicate and understand at a more advanced level, such as 

when she is speaking with a physician or participating in the hearing with 

28 the ALJ. In other words, the record includes substantial evidence from 

which the ALJ could reasonably infer that plaintiffs English language 

- 6 -	 15cv523 WQl-I (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-00523-WQH-KSC Document 20 Filed 08/18/16 Page 6 of 9
1 

2 

abilJties were 

testImony. 

limited but not as much as plaintiff claimed in her 

ld. at 26-27. 

3 

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the ALJ did not err in 

19 at 3). Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's reliance on several 

documents, including the Disability Report titled, Form SSA - 336-7 and the Disability 7" 

Report titled Form SSA - 3368, as evidence that Plaintiff is not illiterate and unable to 

8 

communicate in English because those documents are inconclusive. Plaintiff objects 9 

to the Magistrate Judge's use ofthe Work History Report as evidence because it is not 

10 II 

clear that Bahoo filled out the form herself. 

11 

Plaintiffobjects to the Magistrate Judge's use ofthe medical records that do not 

12 

.. include notations indicating Plaintiffs inability to communicate in the English 1311 

language because medical records should not be used as conclusive evidence for 

1411 

disability determinations. Plaintiff further contends that Plaintiffs education from 

1511 

another country and the fact that she took courses to become a certified babysitter and 161/ 

work at a daycare should not be indicative of her ability to communicate in English 17 

because a foreign education is generally not indicative ofthe ability to communicate 

18 

in English and "there is nothing inherent in the taking ofcourses; attaining a babysitter 1911 

license; and babysitting children that necessarily required the ability to communicate 

20 " 

or read/write in the English language." ld. at 7. 21 .. 

This Court has reviewed all ofthe records and the Report and Recommendation 

22 

and concludes that the evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff is not illiterate 

2311 

in or unable to communicate in English. The Disability Report titled, Form SSA - 336­

2411 

7, which was completed as a result ofa face-to-face interview between plaintiff and an 

2511 

interviewer, indicated that Plaintiff did not have trouble reading, understanding, 2611 

talking, and answering in English. In the Disability Report titled, Form SSA - 3368, 2711 

the Plaintiff indicated that she can speak and understand English. The Work History 2811 

Report was completed by hand and signed by Plaintiff provides evidence that Plaintiff 

7 - 15cv523 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-00523-WQH-KSC Document 20 Filed 08/18/16 Page 7 of 9
111 has communication skills in English. In that Report, the responses were written in 

2 II simple English using the first person which supports the conclusion that Plaintiff filled 

3 II out the form herself and has the ability to read, write, and understand basic English. 

411 Plaintiffs prior experience as a certified babysitter and her work at a daycare also 

5 II supports the ALl's conclusion that Plaintiffhas some communication skills in English. 

6 II The ALI did not commit legal error when she considered the fact that Plaintiff took 

7 courses to become a certified babysitter. SSA regulations require the ALJ to consider 

8 information about the claimant's "formal or informal education [ she] may have through 

9 II [her] previous work, community projects, hobbies, and any other activities which might 

10 help [her] work." 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b)(6). 

11 Given the two Disability Reports, the Work History Report, the notations in the 

12 II medical records, Plaintiff s prior foreign education, and Plaintiff s prior work 

13 II experience, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the ALl's finding that 

14 II Plaintiff is not illiterate in or unable to communicate in English was supported by 

15 sufficient evidence. I 

16 B. Credibility Determination 

1711 Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the ALJ did not err in 

18 II finding that Plaintiff s testimony regarding her medical condition is not credible. 

19 II Plaintiff contends that "the alleged lack of support from the medical evidence cannot 

20 II be the sole basis for rejection ofa claimant's testimony." (ECF No. 19 at 10). Plaintiff 

21 II contends that the "ALJ failed to articulate clear and convincing reasons for rejecting 

22 Basima Bahoo's testimony." Id. 

23 Congress expressly prohibits granting disability benefits based solely on 

2411 subjective complaints. 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (explaining 

2511 that "statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you 

26 

2711 IThe Court does not reach the argument regarding Plaintiffs skills or past work 

history because Section 201.17 does not apply to Plaintiff. Section 201.17 is 

28 II inal?p'licable because the ALI did not err in finding that Plaintiff is not illiterate in or 

umilile to communicate in English. 

- 8 - I ScvS23 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-00523-WQH-KSC Document 20 Filed 08/18/16 Page 8 of 9
1 II are disabled ..."). The ALJ is also prohibited from rejecting or discrediting claims of 

2 II excess pain testimony based solely on the lack of objective medical support in the 

3 II record. See Light v. Social Security Administration, 119 F.3d 789,792 (9th Cir. 1997). 

4 II In this case, Plaintiff s testimony about increased and excessive pain was in conflict 

5 II with medical records that describe "mild improvement." (ECF No. 18 at 18). Plaintiff s 

611 records do not indicate any signs ofworsening conditions nor any signs to collaborate 

7 II Plaintiffs testimony that she could not "lift and carry more than one pound." Id. at 19. 

811 Plaintiffs testimony concerning her worsening conditions conflicts with medical 

9 1/ records, which state that the Plaintiff"did well post-surgically," is "overall doing well," 

1 0 II and has "decreased use ofnarcotics." Id. Based on the record, the Court concludes that 

11 II the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the ALJ met her burden of providing 

12 clear and convincing reasons of rejecting Plaintiffs testimony based on credibility. 

13 IV. CONCLUSION 

1411 After a de novo review ofthose portions ofthe Report and Recommendation to 

15 1\ which Plaintiff objected, and after a review of the ALl's decision and the 

16 II Administrative Record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly evaluated 

17 1\ the facts and correctly applied the controlling law in this case. The Court concludes 

18 II that the ALl's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free oflegal error. 

1911 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF 

201\ No. 18) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 

2111 (ECF No. 13) is DENIED; and (3) Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 

2211 (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for 

2311 Defendant and against Plaintiff. 

24 

26 

2511 Dated: ~ United States "'District Judge 27 

28 

WILLIAM O. H.KYES 

- 9 - 15cv523 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-00523-WQH-KSC Document 20 Filed 08/18/16 Page 9 of 9