Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00214/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00214-0/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 (DIWW)

---

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

1

 On February 12, 2007, Michael J. Astrue was sworn in as Commissioner of Social

Security, replacing Linda McMahon, the original defendant herein. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1), Michael J. Astrue is substituted as the defendant in this

action. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN DELPH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0214 EFB

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER

Commissioner of Social Security,1

Defendant. 

 /

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

(“Commissioner”) denying plaintiff’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”)

under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”). For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment or remand is granted, the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment

is denied, and this matter is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further

findings as directed in this opinion. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff.

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 12
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

2

 Disability Insurance Benefits are paid to disabled persons who have contributed to the

Social Security program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq. Supplemental Security Income is paid to

disabled persons with low income. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1382, et seq. Both provisions define disability,

in part, as an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity” due to “a medically

determinable physical or mental impairment. . . .” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(a) and

1382c(a)(3)(A). A parallel five-step sequential evaluation governs eligibility for benefits under

both programs. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 404.1571-76, 416.920 and 416.971-76; Bowen v.

Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987). The following summarizes the sequential evaluation: 

Step one: Is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful

activity? If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed

to step two. 

Step two: Does the claimant have a “severe” impairment? 

If so, proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not disabled is

appropriate. 

Step three: Does the claimant’s impairment or combination

of impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt.

404, Subpt. P, App.1? If so, the claimant is automatically

determined disabled. If not, proceed to step four. 

Step four: Is the claimant capable of performing his past

work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step

five. 

Step five: Does the claimant have the residual functional

capacity to perform any other work? If so, the claimant is not

disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled. 

2

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, born October 21, 1956, applied for disability benefits on July 30, 2004.

Administrative Transcript (“AT”) 55. Plaintiff alleged he was unable to work since June 2002,

due to degenerative disc disease, neck injury, pain, headaches, and depression. AT 18, 37, 39,

47-48, 129. Plaintiff completed high school and has past relevant work as a janitor and forklift

driver. AT 39, 47-54, 80-92. Plaintiff injured his neck in 1999, while working as a janitor. AT

153. He underwent a disectomy and fusion on February 8, 2000, and returned to work until June

2002, the alleged onset date of his disability. AT 14, 148, 153. He underwent another 

disectomy and fusion on June 23, 2003, and applied for disability benefits on July 30, 2004. AT

55, 134-35.

On May 24, 2006, following a hearing before administrative law judge (“ALJ”) Antonio

Achieved-Torres, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled.2

 AT 13-18. The ALJ made the

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 12
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

Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The claimant bears the burden of proof in the first four steps of the sequential evaluation

process. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5. The Commissioner bears the burden if the sequential

evaluation process proceeds to step five. Id.

3

following findings:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity

after June 15, 2002.

2. The medical evidence establishes that the claimant has

severe degenerative disc disease, but that he does not have

an impairment or combination of impairments listed in or

medically equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P,

Regulations No. 4.

3. The claimant’s subjective complaints are compatible with

the performance of light and sedentary work.

4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity for light

work activity. The claimant can lift 20 pounds

occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. The claimant cans

[sic] sit for 6 hours, and stand and walk for 6 hours, in an 8

hour day. He can perform activities such as climbing,

stooping, kneeling, and crouching on an occasional basis. 

5. The claimant cannot perform his past relevant work. The

claimant is 49 years of age and has a 12th grade education.

6. Rule 202.21, Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4,

directs that the claimant is not disabled, as there are a

significant number of jobs that he can perform. 

7. The claimant was not under a “disability” as defined in the

Social Security Act, at any time through the date of this

decision (20 CFR § 404.1520(e)).

AT 18.

On December 15, 2006, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review, and

the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. AT 5-7. 

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 12
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

4

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

In his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff presents a single issue challenging the

Commissioner’s decision. He alleges that the ALJ erred at step five of the sequential evaluation

by relying on the Medical Vocational Guidelines and failing to obtain the testimony of a

vocational expert. 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

The Commissioner’s decision that a claimant is not disabled will be upheld if the findings

of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record and the proper legal standards were

applied. Schneider v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2000);

Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999); Tackett v. Apfel,

180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999).

 The findings of the Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence,

are conclusive. See Miller v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 845, 847 (9th Cir. 1985). Substantial evidence is

more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521

(9th Cir. 1996). “‘It means such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion.’” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol.

Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). 

“The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical

testimony, and resolving ambiguities.” Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.

2001) (citations omitted). “Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

interpretation, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” 

Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IV. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ should have utilized a vocational expert at step five of the

sequential evaluation to establish whether there was work that plaintiff could perform in light of

his nonexertional limitations. In particular, plaintiff argues that due to his severe neck condition

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 12
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

5

and resultant pain, he needs fifteen minute breaks every ninety minutes, frequently has to

alternate between standing and walking, and must avoid prolonged stationary positioning as well

as repetitive motions of the neck. Further, he alleges he can only lift five to ten pounds, cannot

pull any significant weight, and can only occasionally do fine manipulative or gross handling. 

Finally, he alleges he can only stand or walk for two hours out of an eight hour work day and can

sit for no more than half an hour at a time.

This laundry list of limitations is culled from the various medical opinions in the record. 

Plaintiff does not explicitly argue that the ALJ should have adopted one medical opinion over

another. Rather, he asserts that the ALJ failed to indicate the specific reports he relied on in

determining plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, and simply ignored portions of the doctors’

opinions that expressed specific nonexertional limitations. Plaintiff seems to argue that all such

opinions should be credited, and that a vocational expert should be called on to assess available

jobs in light of the purported limitations. 

Instead of calling a vocational expert, the ALJ relied on the Medical Vocational

Guidelines to determine that there was a significant number of jobs that plaintiff could perform.

AT 17-18. The Guidelines in table form (referred to as the “grids”) are an administrative tool the

Secretary may rely on when considering claimants with substantially uniform levels of

impairment. Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1340 (9th Cir. 1988). They reflect

combinations of residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, and can be

used to determine whether work other than a claimant’s past relevant work is available. See

Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 577-78 (9th Cir. 1988)

(Pregerson, J., concurring). 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 5 of 12
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

3

 Exertional capabilities are the “primary strength activities” of sitting, standing,

walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling. 20 C.F.R. § 416.969a (b) (1996); SSR 83-10;

Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1989). Nonexertional activities include

mental, sensory, postural, manipulative and environmental matters which do not directly affect

the primary strength activities. 20 C.F.R. § 416.969a (c) (1996); SSR 83-10; Cooper, 880 F.2d

at 1156 n. 7 (citing 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 200.00(e)). “If a claimant has an

impairment that limits his or her ability to work without directly affecting his or her strength, the

claimant is said to have nonexertional (not strength-related) limitations that are not covered by

the grids.” Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 1993). 

6

The grids may be used if a claimant has both exertional and nonexertional limitations, so

long as the nonexertional limitations do not significantly impact the exertional capabilities.3

Bates v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds, Bunnell v.

Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). The ALJ is not automatically required to

deviate from the grids whenever plaintiff has alleged a nonexertional limitation. Desrosiers, 846

F.2d at 577 (“[T]he fact that a non-exertional limitation is alleged does not automatically

preclude application of the grids.”); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 200.00(e)(2) (1996).

The ALJ must weigh the evidence with respect to work experience, education, and psychological

and physical impairments to determine whether a nonexertional limitation significantly limits

plaintiff’s ability to work in a certain category. Desrosiers, 846 F.2d at 578. “A non-exertional

impairment, if sufficiently severe, may limit the claimant’s functional capacity in ways not

contemplated by the guidelines.” Id., at 577-78. 

When a claimant’s non-exertional limitations are “sufficiently severe” so as to

significantly limit the range of work permitted by the claimant’s exertional limitations, the grids

are inapplicable. Id., at 577. In such cases, the ALJ must take the testimony of a vocational

expert in order to identify specific jobs within the claimant’s capabilities. Burkhart, 856 F.2d at

1340 (citations omitted); Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F. 3d. 1033 (9th Cir. 2001).

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 6 of 12
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

4

 Light work involves lifting no more than twenty pounds at a time with frequent lifting

or carrying of objects weighing up to ten pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very

little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it

involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be

considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light work, you must have the ability to

do substantially all of these activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). 

5

 Rule 202.21 of the grids indicates that a “younger individual” with a high school

education and previous work experience of the skilled or semi-skilled variety is not disabled. 

The regulations define a “younger individual” as a person age 18 through 49. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,

App. 2, § 201.00(h)(i). 

7

In this case, the ALJ found that plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) for

light work activity.4

 Specifically, he found that plaintiff could lift twenty pounds occasionally

and ten pounds frequently; he could sit, stand and walk for six hours in an eight hour day and

could perform activities such as climbing, stooping, kneeling, and crouching on an occasional

basis. AT 18. He further found that this RFC determination “would accommodate any limits

that the claimant may experience lifting with his upper extremities.” AT 17. 

The ALJ did not find that plaintiff had any significant nonexertional limitations, and thus

relied on the grids to conclude at step five that plaintiff was not disabled because, although he

could not do his past work as a fork lift operator or janitor, he could do skilled or semiskilled

light work, pursuant to Rule 202.21.5 AT 17-18. 

In arriving at this conclusion, the ALJ noted that the “vast majority of physicians . . .

suggested that [plaintiff could] perform light work.” AT 17. Indeed, the record shows that one

of plaintiff’s treating physicians, Dr. Susan Scholey, M.D., repeatedly opined during her

treatment of plaintiff in connection with his worker’s compensation claim that he was capable of

performing light work. For example, in December 2001 and October 20, 2003, Dr. Scholey

opined that plaintiff was capable of doing light work, but was precluded from prolonged cervical

flexion, extension or rotation. AT 280, 389. 

Similarly, plaintiff’s other treating physician, Dr. Darin Latimore, M.D., who began

treating plaintiff in 2005, opined that plaintiff had no limitations in standing, walking or sitting,

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 7 of 12
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

6

 Although Dr. Latimore opined that plaintiff could lift “less than ten pounds” frequently,

the requirements for light work merely require a person to lift no more than twenty pounds at a

time and “up to ten pounds” frequently. Plaintiff need only be able to perform “substantially”

all of these activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). Dr. Latimore’s opinion that plaintiff could lift

twenty pounds occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently, is substantially consistent with

the definition of light work. Further, as discussed above, almost every doctor in the record found

plaintiff capable of lifting ten pounds frequently.

8

and found that he could lift twenty pounds occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently.6

AT 423. Examining physician, Dr. Rajeswari Kumar, M.D., also opined in October 2004, that

plaintiff could lift twenty-five pounds occasionally and fifteen pounds frequently. AT 247. He

further opined that plaintiff’s ability to stand, walk and sit were unlimited so long as he could

change position frequently. AT 247. 

This opinion is more or less consistent with that of examining neurologist Nicholas

Butowski, M.D., who conducted a comprehensive neurologic examination of plaintiff in March

2006. Based on that examination and a review of plaintiff’s medical records, Dr. Butowski

opined that plaintiff could lift and/or carry up to twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds

frequently. AT 433. He also opined that plaintiff could stand and/or walk for six hours in an

eight-hour workday, but noted that he “may need a 10-15 minute break every 90 minutes” due to

neck pain. AT 432.

In light of these largely consistent opinions, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Scholey’s

anomalous opinion from April 2005. AT 383- 86. That opinion, recorded on a functional

assessment worksheet, indicated that plaintiff could only lift five to ten pounds, sit for a half

hour without interruption, and stand or walk for a total of two hours in a workday. Id. This

opinion was conclusory and unsupported by reference to any medical evidence. See Meanel v.

Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.1999) (treating physician’s conclusory, minimally supported

opinion rejected). Moreover, it contradicted her earlier, consistent assessments that plaintiff was

capable of light work, even after his second fusion, and other medical opinions to that effect. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 8 of 12
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

7

 The term “semi-sedentary” is used in state workers’ compensation cases. See

Administrative Director, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers’

Compensation, State of California, “Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities” (April 1, 1997)

(the “Revised Schedule”). An individual who can do “semi-sedentary work” “can do work

approximately 50% of the time in a sitting position, and approximately 50% of the time in a

standing or walking position, with a minimum of demands for physical effort whether standing,

walking or sitting.” Id. This does not directly correlate to the Administration’s definition of

“light work,” but neither does it contradict it. See f.n. 4.

9

The ALJ noted this, remarking that this was an “isolated opinion” and that there was no

objective evidence showing that plaintiff’s ability to sit and ambulate was significantly impaired. 

AT 17. These were specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the one anomalous opinion of

plaintiff’s treating physician. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (a contradicted opinion of a treating or

examining professional may be rejected for “specific and legitimate” reasons). 

However, while the ALJ correctly noted that there were many opinions reflecting

plaintiff’s ability to perform most of the requirements of light work, he did not address the

doctors’ opinions as to plaintiff’s various collateral, nonexertional limitations. 

For example, in treating plaintiff in connection with his worker’s compensation claim,

Dr. Scholey repeatedly noted that plaintiff should avoid flexing, rotating and extending his neck. 

AT 280, 383-86, 389. This is consistent with treating physician Dr. Latimore’s opinion that

plaintiff’s neck condition and resultant pain limited his ability to push and pull with his upper

extremities. AT 423. 

Furthermore, several examining physicians, although opining that plaintiff could

essentially perform the basic requirements of light work, noted limitations in connection with his

neck impairment. For example, Dr. Thomas S. Pattison, M.D. opined that plaintiff could do

“semi-sedentary” work, but should avoid “repetitive motions of the neck” and “prolonged

stationary positioning.”7

 AT 207-08. Along these same lines, Dr. Kumar opined that plaintiff’s

ability to stand, walk and sit were unlimited “as long as he can changes [sic] position

frequently.” AT 247. Likewise, Dr. Butowski opined that plaintiff’s neck condition could

require him to take “ten to fifteen minute breaks every 90 minutes, or so, to stretch and/or rest”

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 9 of 12
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

10

due to pain. AT 432. 

Although the ALJ recited these various opinions in his summary of the evidence, he

otherwise ignored them in determining plaintiff’s RFC. Instead, he summarily concluded that

light work “would accommodate any limits that the claimant may experience lifting with his

upper extremities.” AT 17. He cited no evidence to support this conclusion, and did not

otherwise comment on plaintiff’s purported need to take breaks, change positions, or avoid

repetitive neck motions. 

Likewise, the ALJ failed to address the opinions of Drs. Latimore and Butowski, both of

whom found that plaintiff’s neck impairment resulted in pain and numbness in his arms and

hands, thereby limiting his ability to perform fine manipulation and gross handling. AT 425,

433. The ALJ referred to Dr. Butowski’s opinion in his recitation of the evidence, noting that

Dr. Butowski found plaintiff could engage in fine manipulation and gross manipulation

occasionally, but completely ignored Dr. Butowski’s qualification that plaintiff would “not be

efficient” at those tasks. AT 15, 433. Dr. Butowski found that plaintiff had reduced sensory

perception in his forearm and digits in connection with his radiculopathy, and concluded that his

ability to perform gross handling and fine manipulation would be impaired as a result. AT 432-

33. 

According to Social Security Ruling 85-15, a loss of “ fine manual dexterity narrows the

sedentary and light ranges of work much more than it does the medium, heavy, and very heavy

ranges of work.” Further, “any limitation” in a claimant’s ability to use his hands to grasp, hold,

and turn objects “must be considered very carefully to determine its impact on the size of the

remaining occupational base of a person who is otherwise found functionally capable of light

work.” Social Security Ruling 83-14. 

 Before applying the grids at step five, “the ALJ should first determine if a claimant’s

nonexertional limitations significantly limit the range of work permitted by his exertional

limitations.” Desrosiers, 846 F.2d at 577.

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 10 of 12
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

11

Here, the ALJ did not make this determination. The ALJ’s incomplete reference to Dr.

Butowski’s opinion did little to resolve the issue of whether plaintiff’s purported handling

limitations affected the range of work available to him. Further, although he recited the various

medical opinions in the record, he otherwise failed to address the multitude of opined nonexertional limitations. 

An ALJ is not free to ignore the findings of plaintiff’s physicians; he must “either accept

the opinions . . . or give specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting them.” Embrey v. Bowen,

849 F.2d 418, 422 n.3 (9th Cir. 1988); Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1038 n.10 (9th Cir.

2007); Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31. 

Here, in determining plaintiff’s RFC and, relatedly, the range of work available to him,

the ALJ ignored opined limitations such as needing to change positions and take breaks, and

instead made the conclusory finding that plaintiff was capable of a full range of light work. 

Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discern what the ALJ made of these various opined

limitations, because he offered no analysis as to why he thought they should be either credited or

discredited. 

The burden is on the Commissioner at step five of the evaluation to prove that plaintiff

has the capacity to perform work other than his past relevant work. This case should be

remanded for discussion, analysis and consideration of the varied, opined nonexertional

limitations related to plaintiff’s severe neck impairment. If, after proper analysis of these

opinions, it is determined that these limitations are “sufficiently severe” to limit the range of

work plaintiff can perform, a vocational expert should be called to determine if there are other

jobs plaintiff can do in light of those limitations.

For the foregoing reasons, this matter will be remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g) for further findings addressing the deficiencies noted above, and if appropriate, further

development of the record.

////

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 11 of 12
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

12

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted; 

2. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; 

3. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order; and,

4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff.

DATED: March 25, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00214-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 03/25/08 Page 12 of 12