Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03375/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03375-2/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 (DIWC)

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

ANDREA NARED, )

)

Plaintiff ) CIVIL NO. 06-3375 SBA

)

vs. )

)

MICHAEL ASTRUE, ) [Proposed] ORDER

)

Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

This case is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Based on the

pleadings, transcript and argument submitted, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is hereby

GRANTED and the Defendant’s cross-motion is DENIED. 

A decision by the Commissioner of Social Security to deny an application for disability

benefits “may be set aside if they are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial

evidence.” Reddick v. Chater,157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). In this case, the ALJ found that

Ms. Nared had “moderate limits on social functioning and moderate limits on concentration,

persistence, and pace.” (Administrative transcript, p. 34) He did not include these limitations in

his hypothetical question to the vocational expert, instead asking the expert to assume that Ms.

Nared was limited to simple routine work. This hypothetical question did not adequately present

Ms. Nared’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence and pace and other work-related

Case 4:06-cv-03375-SBA Document 16 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 1 of 2 Case 4:06-cv-03375-SBA Document 17 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 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

abilities to the vocational expert. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically rejected the

ALJ’s approach, approvingly citing the Eighth Circuit’s holding in Newton v. Chater, 92 F.3d

688, 695 (8th Cir. 1996) that the ALJ’s finding that the claimant had limitations in concentration,

persistence and pace “was not adequately presented when ALJ’s hypothetical limited the

claimant to simple jobs.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 956 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The ALJ’s failure to include all Ms. Nared’s acknowledged limitations in his hypothetical

question to the vocational expert was legal error and the resulting testimony of that expert was

not substantial evidence to support a denial of benefits. Accordingly, the decision of the

Commissioner is REVERSED and the case REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social

Security for a new hearing and decision consistent with this Order. 

So ORDERED.

 

Saundra B. Armstrong

United States District Judge

Dated: 

Case 4:06-cv-03375-SBA Document 16 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 2 of 2

9/28/07

Case 4:06-cv-03375-SBA Document 17 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2