Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01229/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01229-3/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-1229-WQH-NLS

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

LINDA GUERRERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-1229-WQH-NLS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

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

No. 34) filed by the United States Magistrate Judge.

I. Background

On July 23, 2012, Plaintiff Linda Guerrero filed an application for Supplemental 

Security Income. Administrative Record (“AR”) at 124–129, 140. Plaintiff was 

represented by counsel during her appearance before the Administrative Law Judge 

(“ALJ”) assigned to her application. See id. at 37–38. On November 20, 2014, the ALJ 

issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits and finding Plaintiff not 

disabled under the Social Security Act. Id. at 20–28. The ALJ found that Plaintiff could 

perform her past relevant work as a customer service clerk and a retail sales clerk and that 

this past relevant work does not require her to perform work-related activities precluded 

Case 3:16-cv-01229-WQH-NLS Document 36 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-cv-1229-WQH-NLS

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 her residual functional capacity. Id. Plaintiff never raised the issue of whether her past 

work demonstrated “substantial gainful activity” before the ALJ. See AR at 48–49. 

Plaintiff filed an appeal of the ALJ’s decision. Id. at 15–16, 202–03. Plaintiff did 

not argue that the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff’s past work was relevant because it 

demonstrated substantial gainful activity. See id. On March 3, 2015, the Appeals Council 

denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Id. at 1–4. 

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint (ECF No. 1) 

against Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.1 On 

October 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16). On 

December 2, 2016, Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition 

to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 21). On April 26, 2017, the United 

States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and that Defendant’s Cross-Motion 

for Summary Judgment be granted. (ECF No. 25). The Magistrate Judge found that 

Plaintiff waived the argument that the record does not demonstrate a level of “substantial 

gainful activity” for her past relevant work by not raising the issue before the ALJ or the 

Appeals Council. Id. at 9–12. 

On July 19, 2017, the Court issued an Order adopting the Report and 

Recommendation in its entirety, denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 

granting Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 28). The Court 

stated that “[t]he Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff waived the argument 

that the record does not demonstrate a level of ‘substantial gainful activity’ for her past 

relevant work.” Id. at 3. The Clerk of Court entered judgment for the Defendant on July 

20, 2017. (ECF No. 29).

 

1 Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Berryhill has been automatically substituted for Colvin as her 

successor as Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

Case 3:16-cv-01229-WQH-NLS Document 36 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-cv-1229-WQH-NLS

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

On August 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment of the 

Court “on the grounds that the memorandum and resulting judgment constitute a 

fundamental and clear error of law based on Lamear v. Berryhill, [865] F.3d [1201] (9th 

Cir. August 1, 2017).” (ECF No. 30 at 1). On August 31, 2017, Defendant filed a Response 

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment of the Court. (ECF No. 32). On 

September 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF No. 33). 

On September 21, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment of the Court be 

denied. (ECF No. 34). The Magistrate Judge concluded that “Plaintiff’s counsel did not 

raise the argument that she lacked past relevant work before the ALJ or the Appeals 

Council, and thus, waived the issue.” Id. at 5 (citing Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 

(9th Cir. 1999), as amended (June 22, 1999). The Magistrate Judge reasoned that Lamear

does not require a different result because “the claimant in Lamear raised the issue before 

the Appeals Council, 865 F.3d at 1206, whereas Plaintiff did not, AR 202-03.” Id. 

On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 35). Plaintiff contends that the Court should reject the Report and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 34) because Plaintiff did not waive the argument that the 

record does not demonstrate a level of substantial gainful activity for her past relevant 

work. Id. Plaintiff contends that an issue is not waived when the evidence on the record 

does not support an ALJ’s erroneous finding even if the claimant’s “attorney did not warn 

the ALJ of the possible error and did not point out that error to the Appeals Council.” Id. 

at 1. 

II. Legal Standard

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). 

Case 3:16-cv-01229-WQH-NLS Document 36 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-cv-1229-WQH-NLS

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

III. Analysis

Plaintiff contends that she did not waive the argument that the record does not

demonstrate a level of substantial gainful activity for her past relevant work because the 

ALJ’s contrary finding is not supported by the evidence on the record, even though Plaintiff

did not raise that issue before the ALJ or the Appeals Council. Id. at 1. The Court of 

Appeals has explicitly “h[e]ld that, at least when claimants are represented by counsel, they 

must raise all issues and evidence at their administrative hearings in order to preserve them 

on appeal.” Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 1999), as amended (June 22, 

1999). Plaintiff did not raise the issue of whether the record demonstrates a level of 

substantial gainful activity for her past relevant work before the ALJ or the Appeals 

Council. See AR at 15–16, 48–49, 202–03. Consequently, Plaintiff has waived her right 

to raise that issue before this Court. Meanel, 172 F.3d at 1115. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is 

adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment of the Court

(ECF No. 30) is DENIED.

Dated: February 12, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-01229-WQH-NLS Document 36 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4