Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00366/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maria Francisca Aldaz,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-0366-TUC-RM (JR)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Maria Aldaz brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking 

judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her

claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI of the Social 

Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. Pending before the court are an Opening 

Brief filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 19), the Commissioner’s Responsive Brief (Doc. 23), and the 

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (Doc. 24). Based on the pleadings and the administrative record 

submitted to the Court, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court reverse 

the Commissioner’s final decision and remand for a rehearing.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff presented four issues in her Opening Brief: (1) whether the Administrative 

Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by presenting a hypothetical to the Vocational Expert (“VE”)

that was inconsistent with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination;

(2) whether the ALJ erred by failing to evaluate evidence that Aldaz was obese in and after 

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 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

April 2016; (3) whether the ALJ erred by failing to obtain a medical opinion to inform her 

decision about the functional significance of Aldaz’s November 2015 and December 2016 

MRIs; and (4) whether the ALJ erred by relying on testimony from the VE that relied on 

non-existent occupational codes. Based on these alleged errors, Aldaz requests that the 

matter be remanded for payment of benefits or, in the alternative, for another hearing.

In response, the Commissioner agrees the ALJ erred in presenting the hypothetical 

to the VE and that one of the occupational codes cited by the VE is not listed in the 

Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). The Commissioner disagrees that the ALJ 

erred by failing to consider Aldaz’s obesity, but nevertheless agrees that remand is justified 

based on the ALJ’s errors and that remand would also be useful for the ALJ to obtain a 

physical consultative examination or evidence from a medical expert regarding the 

significance of Aldaz’s MRIs. The Commissioner concludes by requesting the remand 

order directing the ALJ to: 

- offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a hearing; 

- obtain a physical consultative examination or evidence from a medical 

expert; 

- reevaluate Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments at step two of 

the sequential evaluation process; 

- reevaluate Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms

- reassess Plaintiff’s maximum residual functional capacity; and 

- obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence to clarify the effect of the 

assessed limitations on Plaintiff’s ability to perform other work in the 

national economy.

Responsive Brief, p. 9.

In her reply, Aldaz indicates that she informed the Commissioner that she no longer 

sought a remand for benefits but sought only a remand for further proceedings. Aldaz 

further explained that while the parties agreed that remand is appropriate, they disagreed 

about the terms of the remand. Aldaz requests that the remand order direct the ALJ to:

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 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

- consolidate any pending subsequent application;

- offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a hearing and to submit additional 

evidence and arguments;

- readjudicate Plaintiff’s consolidated applications using the five-step; 

sequential evaluation;

-reevaluate Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments, including 

obesity, and subjective symptoms based on the new record on remand; 

- if the record on remand does not include a medical opinion about the 

functional significance of the November 2015 MRI of the cervical spine and 

the December 2016 MRI of the lumbar spine, obtain such an opinion;

- if the sequential evaluation goes beyond step three, reassess Plaintiff’s

residual functional capacity based on the new record on remand; 

- if the ALJ relies on vocation al-expert testimony for his or her decision, rely 

on testimony in response to an accurate and complete hypothetical question, 

including Plaintiff’s need to avoid fumes and chemicals; and

- render a new decision based on the new record on remand.

Reply, p. 5.

II. Background

A. Procedural

Aldaz filed an application for SSI on April 29, 2015, alleging disability beginning 

January 1, 2014. (Administrative Record (AR) 44, 284.) The application was denied 

initially and upon reconsideration. (AR 218, 225.) Aldaz requested a hearing before an 

ALJ. (AR 229.) On June 14, 2017, she appeared with counsel and testified before an ALJ. 

(AR 153-196.) During the hearing, Aldaz amended her alleged onset date to her SSI 

application filing date, i.e., April 29, 2015. (AR 29, 177.) On September 19, 2017, the ALJ 

issued a Decision finding Aldaz not disabled within the meaning of the Act and therefore 

not entitled to benefits. (AR 29-44.) The Decision became the final decision of the 

Commissioner when the Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision. (AR 1.) 

This appeal followed.

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 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

B. Plaintiff’s background

Aldaz was born in 1966 and was 50 years-old on the date the ALJ issued her 

Decision. (AR 44, 284.) She has completed the ninth grade; she did not finish the tenth 

grade. (AR 158.) The ALJ found that Aldaz could not perform her past relevant work, 

which the VE classified as nurse’s assistant, combination assistant manager and stock 

clerk, and stock clerk. (AR 177-79.) 

III. The ALJ’s Application of the Disability Standards

For purposes of Social Security benefits determinations, a disability is defined as:

The inability to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any 

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can 

be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be 

expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505, 416.905(a).

Whether a claimant is disabled is determined using a five-step evaluation process.

It is claimant’s burden to show (1) she has not worked since the alleged disability onset 

date, (2) she has a severe physical or mental impairment, and (3) the impairment meets or 

equals a listed impairment or (4) her residual functional capacity (RFC) precludes her from 

doing her past work. If at any step the Commissioner determines that a claimant is or is not 

disabled, the inquiry ends. If the claimant satisfies her burden though step four, the burden 

shifts to the Commissioner to show at step five that the claimant has the RFC to perform 

other work that exists in substantial numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v).

Here, at step one, the ALJ found that Aldaz had not engaged in substantial gainful 

activity since April 29, 2015, her application date. (AR 31.) At step two of the inquiry, the 

ALJ concluded that Aldaz had the following “severe” impairments: degenerative disc 

disease and fibromyalgia (AR 31-35.) At step three, the ALJ determined that Aldaz’s 

impairment did not meet or medically equal one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 

404, subpt. P, app. 1. (AR. 35-37.) 

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 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

Between steps three and four, the ALJ conducted an RFC assessment,1and 

concluded that:

[Aldaz] has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined 

in 20 CFR 416.967(b) including lifting up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 

pounds frequently, standing and/or walking up to 6 hours in an 8-hour 

workday, and sitting up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, with the following 

restrictions: the claimant should never climb ladder except as follows: work 

that can be semi-skilled, with only occasional contact with the public and coworkers. 

(AR 37-42.) At step four, the ALJ found that, through her date last insured, Aldaz was 

unable to perform any past relevant work. (AR 42.)

At step five, the ALJ, based on the testimony of a vocational expert, concluded that 

“[c]onsidering [Aldaz’s] age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, 

there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [Aldaz] can

perform.” (AR 42-43.) Specifically, the ALJ determined that Aldaz was able to perform 

the work requirements of an inspection and hand packager, small products assembler, and 

final inspector. (AR 43.) Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Aldaz “has not been under a 

disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since April 29, 2015, the date the 

application was filed (20 CFR 416.920(g)).” (AR 43.)

IV. Discussion

The parties agree that the ALJ decision must be reversed and the case remanded for 

further proceedings. The parties, however, have minor disagreements on the terms of the 

remand. The Court will address those disagreements and recommend that the terms of 

remand allow the ALJ to fully reexamine the record and, because that reexamination will 

impact Aldaz’s RFC, direct the ALJ to reconsider all of Aldaz’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 416.920(e), 416.945(e); SSR 96–8p.

 

1

“Between steps three and four of the five-step evaluation, the ALJ must proceed 

to an intermediate step in which the ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional 

capacity.” Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1151 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff’s 

residual functional capacity is what he can do despite existing exertional and nonexertional 

limitations. Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155-56 n. 5-7 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 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

1. Consolidation with any pending subsequent application

In her Reply, Aldaz requests that the Court order the ALJ on remand to consolidate 

the underlying application with any pending subsequent application. Because the request 

appears first in her Reply, the Commissioner understandably did not weigh in on 

consolidation. Aldaz also has not cited legal authority in support of the request or provided 

a factual basis that would support a finding that consolidation is justified by judicial 

economy. As such, the Court recommends that consolidation be left to the Commissioner’s

discretion. 

2. Opportunity for a hearing and the submission of evidence

The parties agree that Aldaz should be afforded the opportunity for a hearing. They 

also agree that Aldaz should be permitted to submit additional medical evidence regarding 

the functional significance of Aldaz’s November 2015 and December 2016 MRIs. The 

Commissioner also does not object to the submission of a “physical consultative 

examination or evidence from a medical expert.” Because the parties agree that additional 

evidence is necessary, the Court recommends that Aldaz be permitted to submit any 

additional relevant evidence and argument.

However, “the administrative law judge is not required to order a consultative 

examination unless the record establishes that such an examination is necessary to enable 

the administrative law judge to render a decision.” Holladay v. Bowen, 848 F.2d 1206, 

1210 (11th Cir. 1988). Thus, it is within the discretion of the ALJ to order a consultative 

examination. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to add this directive, as the ALJ will be 

receiving additional information. If after reviewing additional evidence the ALJ requires a 

consultative examination to evaluate the claim, the Court recommends that the decision 

whether to do so be left to the discretion of the ALJ.

3. Aldaz’s remaining requests

Aldaz’s remaining requests are largely consistent with the ALJ’s role in reevaluating 

her application. Specifically, Aldaz requests that the Court direct the ALJ to readjudicate 

Aldaz’s application using the five-step sequential evaluation; reevaluate her medically 

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 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

determinable impairments, including obesity, and subjective symptoms based on the new 

record on remand; reassess Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity based on the new record 

on remand; and, if the ALJ relies on testimony from a VE, to rely on testimony in response 

to an accurate and complete hypothetical question. These requirements are all encapsulated 

in the five-step sequential evaluation process applicable to all SSI decisions rendered by 

ALJs. Thus, the Court recommends that the ALJ be directed to reevaluate Aldaz’s 

application in its entirety. 

V. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District 

Court, after its independent review, enter an order granting Plaintiff’s request to reverse 

the Commissioner’s final decision and remand to the ALJ to conduct further proceedings.

It is further recommended that the ALJ be directed to:

1. Consider the consolidation of this claim file with any other 

application that is pending at the administrative level;

2. offer the claimant the opportunity for a de novo hearing;

3. Develop the record, obtain any additional necessary evidence and, if 

necessary, order a consultative examination;

4. Take any other action as deemed necessary; and

5. Issue a new decision.

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment.

However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy 

of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District 

Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a 

response to the objections. No reply briefs shall be filed unless leave to do so is granted 

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 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

by the district court. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case 

number: CV 18-0366-TUC-RM. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal 

determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de 

novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Dated this 5th day of February, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00366-RM-JR Document 25 Filed 02/05/20 Page 8 of 8