Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01479/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01479-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRIS DALE PAUL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv1479-WQH-KSC

ORDER

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 21) issued by United States Magistrate recommending that this Court grant

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) and deny Defendant’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19).

I. Background

On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security benefits, alleging disability beginning August 1,

2006. Plaintiff’s application was denied at the initial level and upon reconsideration. 

On January 5, 2015, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Plaintiff not

disabled. The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the following severe impairments:

degenerative disc disease, right leg cellulitis, post-left wrist surgery, and affective

disorder. The ALJ found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of

impairments that meet or equal the severity in the Listing of Impairments. The ALJ

found that Plaintiff was not able to return to any past relevant work which included

- 1 - 16cv1479-WQH-KSC

Case 3:16-cv-01479-WQH-KSC Document 22 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

construction worker and heavy equipment operator. The ALJ found that Plaintiff has

the residual functional capacity to perform light work with certain restrictions including

“could stand and walk for one hour at a time for a total of 4 hours in an 8-hour

workday.” (AR14). The Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration

denied Plaintiff’s request for further review. 

Plaintiff filed a Complaint to obtain judicial review of the final decision by the

Commissioner. After the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment, the Magistrate

Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 21). The Magistrate Judge

concluded that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s non-disability

determination at step five of the disability analysis. The Magistrate Judge found that

the transcript hearing indicates the ALJ presented incomplete hypotheticals to the

vocational expert at the hearing, mistakenly omitting the standing and walking

limitations. Absent the standing and walking limitations, the Magistrate Judge found

that the conclusion that Plaintiff can perform the light work of table worker and final

assembler is not supported by the record. 

The Report and Recommendation filed on August 25, 2017 states, “Within

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of third Report and Recommendation,

‘any party may serve written objections.’ 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)&(C).” The docket

reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

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

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

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.” 

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

Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

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

- 2 - 16cv1479-WQH-KSC

Case 3:16-cv-01479-WQH-KSC Document 22 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

Cir. 2003) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the decision of the

ALJ, the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties. The Court adopts

the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

21) is adopted in its entirety; (2) the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) filed

by Plaintiff is granted; (3) the cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) filed

by Defendant is denied. The case is remanded for further proceedings. The Clerk of

the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

DATED: September 21, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv1479-WQH-KSC

Case 3:16-cv-01479-WQH-KSC Document 22 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3