Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00513/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00513-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gerald Louis Kuryla, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-00513-PHX-NVW 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Gerald Louis Kuryla filed this case for review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied him disability 

insurance benefits and supplemental security income under sections 216(i), 223(d), and 

1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. Defendant concedes that the decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is not supported by substantial evidence, and the 

parties agree that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment. (Doc. 26.) Defendant moves to 

remand this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff contends the court should remand for award of benefits. (Id.) 

The sole issue before the Court is whether this case should be remanded for further 

proceedings or for award of benefits. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff was born on August 8, 1951, and was 59 years old on the alleged 

disability onset date. He was 62 years old at the time of the ALJ’s decision. He has a 

Case 2:15-cv-00513-NVW Document 29 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 8
- 2 - 

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 

high school education and speaks English. He worked as a restaurant manager through 

1996, as a hotel clerk 1997–2001, as a flower shop salesperson 2002–2005, and as a gas 

station cashier from 2006 to the present.1

 In June 2011, he reduced his work at the gas 

station to part-time. At the time of the ALJ hearing, Plaintiff was working 15 hours per 

week, earning $10.05 per hour. His impairments are spinal stenosis and obesity. 

Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits on May 3, 2011, and for 

supplemental security income July 1, 2011, alleging disability beginning June 1, 2011. 

On August 15, 2013, he appeared with his attorney and testified at a video hearing before 

the ALJ. A vocational expert also testified. On September 18, 2013, the ALJ issued a 

decision that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 

The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the hearing decision, 

making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. On March 23, 2015, 

Plaintiff sought review by this Court. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The court may set aside the Commissioner’s disability determination only if the 

determination is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Orn v. 

Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). If the ALJ’s decision is not supported by 

substantial evidence or suffers from legal error, the district court has discretion to reverse 

and remand either for an award of benefits or for further administrative proceedings. 

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996); Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 

1232 (9th Cir. 1987). “Remand for further proceedings is appropriate if enhancement of 

the record would be useful.” Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“Conversely, where the record has been developed fully and further administrative 

proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the district court should remand for an 

immediate award of benefits.” Id. (citing Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1292). 

 1

 These dates are based on the Commissioner’s record of Plaintiff’s FICA 

earnings. 

Case 2:15-cv-00513-NVW Document 29 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 8
- 3 - 

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 

III. FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 

To determine whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of the Social Security 

Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The claimant bears 

the burden of proof on the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at 

step five. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). 

At the first step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaging in 

substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant 

has a “severe” medically determinable physical or mental impairment. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If not, the claimant is not disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. At step 

three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of 

impairments meets or medically equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P 

of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If so, the claimant is automatically found to 

be disabled. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. At step four, the ALJ assesses the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity and determines whether the claimant is still 

capable of performing past relevant work. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If so, the claimant is not 

disabled and the inquiry ends. Id. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth and final step, 

where he determines whether the claimant can perform any other work based on the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If so, the claimant is not disabled. Id. If not, the claimant is 

disabled. Id. 

At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of 

the Social Security Act through June 30, 2017, and that he has not engaged in substantial 

gainful activity since June 1, 2011. At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has the 

following severe impairments: spinal stenosis and obesity. At step three, the ALJ 

determined that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that 

Case 2:15-cv-00513-NVW Document 29 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

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 

meets or medically equals the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, 

Subpart P, Appendix 1. 

At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff: 

has the residual functional capacity to perform a significant range of 

sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except 

the claimant cannot climb ladders, rope and scaffolds or work around 

dangerous moving machinery. The claimant must avoid exposure to dust, 

smoke and other respiratory irritants and extremes in temperature and 

humidity. The claimant is limited to occasional stair climbing and frequent 

reaching overhead. 

The ALJ further found that Plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work, which is 

restaurant manager, salesperson, and gas station cashier, because of his postural and 

environmental limitations. 

At step five, based on the vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff had acquired from past relevant work the skill of working with the public. In 

response to hypothetical questioning, the vocational expert responded that such an 

individual could perform jobs such as check cashing clerk and telemarketer. The ALJ 

concluded that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and residual 

functional capacity, Plaintiff had acquired work skills from past relevant work that are 

transferable to other occupations with jobs existing in significant numbers in the national 

economy. 

IV. ANALYSIS 

After Plaintiff met his burden of proof on the first four steps, the burden shifted to 

Defendant at step five. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). At step 

five, after having determined that Plaintiff’s disabilities prevented him from doing his 

past relevant work, the ALJ was required to decide whether Plaintiff’s impairments 

prevented him from performing other work that exists in the national economy, 

considering his residual functional capacity together with the vocational factors of age, 

education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1). “In order to support a 

finding that [Plaintiff is] not disabled at this fifth step of the sequential evaluation 

Case 2:15-cv-00513-NVW Document 29 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

process, [Defendant is] responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that other 

work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] can do, given 

[his] residual functional capacity and vocational factors.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(2). 

 “Work experience” means skills and abilities an individual has acquired through 

work he has done within the 15 years before the disability decision. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1565(a). Age is also a vocational factor considered in deciding whether a claimant 

can make the adjustment to other work. If a claimant is 55 years or older, it is assumed 

that “age significantly affects a person’s ability to adjust to other work.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1563(d). If the claimant is 55 years or older and is limited to sedentary work, the 

ALJ must find he cannot make the adjustment to other work unless he has skills that 

transfer to other skilled or semiskilled work he can do despite his impairments. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1568(d)(4). If the claimant is 55 years or older and is limited to sedentary work, 

the ALJ may find transferable skills “only if the sedentary work is so similar to [his] 

previous work that [he] would need to make very little, if any, vocational adjustment in 

terms of tools, work processes, work settings, or the industry.” Id. 

The Medical-Vocational Guidelines provide rules for deciding whether a claimant 

is capable of performing other work based on findings of fact regarding the claimant’s 

age, education, and work experience in combination with his exertional residual 

functional capacity. SSR 83-10. Under Medical-Vocational Rule 201.06, if an individual 

is 55 years or older, has a high school education or more that does not provide for direct 

entry into skilled work, has previous work experience that was skilled or semiskilled, and 

has no transferable skills, the individual must be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404, 

Subpart P, Reg. No. 4, App. 2, Rule 201.06. 

The Commissioner’s report of Plaintiff’s FICA earnings shows he worked as a 

restaurant manager through 1996, as a hotel clerk 1997–2001, as a flower shop 

salesperson 2002–2005, and as a gas station cashier from 2006 to the present. During the 

hearing before the ALJ, the vocational expert testified that there was some discrepancy 

between the disability report and the work history report, and Plaintiff said he did not 

Case 2:15-cv-00513-NVW Document 29 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

remember which years he worked which jobs. Plaintiff was not questioned about any 

functions he performed or skills he acquired during any of his past relevant work. 

The ALJ presented a hypothetical to the vocational expert involving an individual 

who is 61 years old, with a high school education, Plaintiff’s work history, and certain 

limitations. The vocational expert said the individual would be restricted to sedentary 

work. When the ALJ asked whether there were sedentary jobs involving skills 

transferable from the jobs performed by Plaintiff, the vocational expert responded there 

were two. She said that work as a restaurant manager involved customer service, dealing 

with the public, ordering, and handling of daily financial paperwork, and those skills 

would transfer to the job of check cashing clerk. The vocational expert said that she had 

not seen a job description for Plaintiff’s work as restaurant manager, but assumed the 

skills based on the job title. She also testified that the job of flower shop clerk would 

involve sales skills, which would transfer to a telemarketer job. However, the vocational 

expert conceded that check cashing clerk and telemarketer jobs are in different industries 

and involve different work processes and settings than Plaintiff’s past relevant work. She 

also testified that about 50% of telemarketer jobs are unskilled. 

Defendant concedes that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding 

that Plaintiff has transferable skills acquired from past relevant work. Defendant states 

that job titles alone do not document an individual’s acquisition of skills, the ALJ failed 

to make the necessary findings of fact regarding the actual skills Plaintiff acquired in his 

prior work, and Plaintiff’s job as a restaurant manager does not qualify as past relevant 

work because he last worked in that job more than 15 years before the ALJ’s September 

2013 decision. Defendant contends that remand is necessary to obtain additional 

evidence regarding Plaintiff’s transferable skills and past relevant work because 

Defendant failed to elicit necessary testimony from Plaintiff and from the vocational 

expert. In other words, because the ALJ’s finding is not supported by substantial 

evidence, Defendant should be able to bring in new evidence on remand. 

Case 2:15-cv-00513-NVW Document 29 Filed 02/29/16 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

At step five, it was Defendant’s burden to develop evidence showing that Plaintiff 

has skills that transfer to other skilled or semiskilled work that is so similar to his 

previous work that very little vocational adjustment would be needed and that he can do 

despite his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(4). Defendant failed to do so. 

Therefore, it must be concluded that Plaintiff does not have transferable skills acquired 

from past relevant work. Under Medical-Vocational Rule 201.06, he must be found 

disabled because he is 55 years or older, has a high school education that does not 

provide for direct entry into skilled work, has previous work experience that was skilled 

or semiskilled, and has no transferable skills. 

V. REMAND 

Defendant moves to remand this case for further administrative proceedings 

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits the Court to enter “a 

judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” At step five Defendant 

was responsible for producing evidence regarding whether Plaintiff had acquired skills 

from past relevant work that would transfer to other work. Defendant did not do so, 

through no fault of Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant’s decision will be reversed without 

remanding for rehearing. 

The parties’ discussion of the “credit-as-true” rule is irrelevant. This appeal does 

not involve any testimony erroneously discredited that now should be credited as true. 

The only question is whether further administrative proceedings would serve a useful 

purpose. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, further 

proceedings would serve only to grant Defendant “a second bite of the apple.” 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Remand pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 26) is granted regarding remand and denied 

regarding further administrative proceedings. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for immediate calculation and 

Case 2:15-cv-00513-NVW Document 29 Filed 02/29/16 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

award of benefits. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall terminate this 

case. 

Dated this 29th day of February, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00513-NVW Document 29 Filed 02/29/16 Page 8 of 8