Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01505/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01505-0/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 

16-cv-1505-BEN-AGS 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Rosalina Crespo AGUNDES, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-1505-BEN-AGS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 16 & 20) 

 A judge denied plaintiff’s Social Security benefits application, finding plaintiff 

could still work as a kitchen helper, room attendant, or packer. But plaintiff can’t read or 

write, and these jobs typically require basic literacy. In this situation, a judge must 

“definitively explain” how plaintiff’s illiteracy impacts the chosen jobs. The judge gave no 

explanation here, so the case must be remanded for that analysis. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rosalina Agundes suffers from degenerative disc disease, diabetes, high 

blood pressure, and obesity. (AR 21.) At her disability hearing, a key issue concerned her 

English literacy. Although she was born and raised in the United States, she testified—

through an interpreter—that she obtained her GED in Spanish and read “very little” 

English. (AR 49-51, 57, 165.) On her Disability Report, she stated that she could not “read 

Case 3:16-cv-01505-BEN-AGS Document 27 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

16-cv-1505-BEN-AGS 

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

and understand English,” and could not “write more than [her] name in English.” (AR 183.) 

According to her medical records, during an emergency room visit an “interpreter was 

needed to translate instructions and medications.” (AR 24, 284.) Finally, she submitted a 

handwritten Work History Report in English (AR 200-06), but no one inquired whether 

anyone helped her with it. In a block labeled, “Name of person completing this form if 

other than the disabled person,” she wrote her own name, apparently misunderstanding the 

instruction. (See AR 206.) 

Based on this evidence, the Administrative Law Judge asked a vocational expert 

whether there were “jobs in the state or national economy” for someone with Agundes’s 

limitations, including being “illiterate in English” and with a “GED in Spanish.” (AR 62-

63.) The expert identified three such representative jobs from the Department of Labor’s 

Dictionary of Occupational Titles: kitchen helper, linen room attendant, and packer. 

(AR 63-64.) Although basic literacy is required for each of those occupations under the 

Dictionary—and the question explicitly presumed the job applicant was “illiterate in 

English”—the expert testified that an applicant like Agundes could do each of those jobs. 

(AR 62-64.) The ALJ “determined that the vocational expert’s testimony is consistent with 

the information contained in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles,” adopted that 

testimony, deemed Agundes able to work, and denied her application. (AR 28.) 

DISCUSSION

Although Agundes appeals on several grounds, this Court need only address her 

dispositive complaint: the failure to explain how an illiterate could perform the reading and 

writing demands of the three identified occupations. (ECF No. 16-1, at 7.) 

A. Agundes’s Illiteracy 

This Court takes Agundes’s illiteracy as a given because the ALJ presumed at the 

hearing that the claimant was “illiterate in English” (AR 62), and the Commissioner 

conceded that the ALJ found her illiterate. (See, e.g., ECF No. 20-1, at 3 (“The ALJ 

accepted [Agundes’s] testimony” that she was “illiterate in English,” but concluded that, 

“though illiterate, Plaintiff was ‘able to communicate in English.’” (citations omitted)); see 

Case 3:16-cv-01505-BEN-AGS Document 27 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

16-cv-1505-BEN-AGS 

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

also Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 227 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[S]tatements 

of fact contained in a brief may be considered admissions of the party[.]”).1

B. Impact of Illiteracy on the Representative Jobs Agundes Might Perform 

In analyzing a claimant’s ability to work, ALJs often reference the Department of 

Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which defines the requirements for about 

13,000 different jobs. See Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 683 F.3d 443, 446 (2d Cir. 

2012) (per curiam). An underlying assumption of the Dictionary is that “basic literacy . . . 

is essential for every job in the economy[.]” Donahue v. Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441, 445 

(7th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Thus, according to the Dictionary, an illiterate person 

would not qualify for any occupation. But this does not mean that illiterate claimants are 

“per se disabled.” Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2001). It simply means 

that when an ALJ “rel[ies] on a job description in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles,” 

the ALJ must “definitively explain” the impact of the claimant’s illiteracy “on her ability 

to find and perform a similar job.” Id. (citation omitted). 

In concluding that Agundes could work, the ALJ relied on three jobs from the 

Dictionary, but did not explain the impact of illiteracy on them. (AR 27-28.) The ALJ 

simply stated that her conclusion was “[b]ased on the testimony of the vocational expert.” 

(AR 28.) But the expert offered no analysis. He merely testified that someone like 

Agundes—that is, someone “illiterate in English” and with similar physical limitations—

could work in those three occupations. (AR 63-64.) The expert may be right. Perhaps 

Agundes can do those jobs, despite her illiteracy. But someone had to “definitively explain” 

                                               

1

 The ALJ never explicitly mentioned Agundes’s illiteracy in the written decision, 

so it could certainly be argued that the ALJ implicitly found Agundes to be literate. If so, 

the failure to make an express finding on this disputed issue—and to support it with explicit 

reasons—would alone be reversible error. See Silveira v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 1257, 1261-62, 

1262 n. 15 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (finding reversible error when the “ALJ made no 

express finding that [the claimant] was literate in English, and there is insufficient evidence 

in the record” to support such a finding; for example, “none of the forms filled out in 

English was clearly filled out by [the claimant] without assistance”). 

Case 3:16-cv-01505-BEN-AGS Document 27 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

16-cv-1505-BEN-AGS 

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

how the ALJ and the expert arrived at that conclusion. “[M]eaningful judicial review” is 

impossible when the entire “assessment takes place in the vocational expert’s head.” Pinto, 

249 F.3d at 847 (citation and alterations omitted). Thus, the case must be remanded so this 

analysis can be made explicit. 

CONCLUSION 

This Court recommends that Agundes’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 16) 

be GRANTED, defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20) be

DENIED, and the case be remanded so the ALJ can make specific findings on Agundes’s 

language capabilities and the impact they have on her ability to work. The parties must file 

any objections to this report by August 28, 2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A party may 

respond to any such objection within 14 days of being served with it. Id. 

Dated: August 14, 2017 

Case 3:16-cv-01505-BEN-AGS Document 27 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4