Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02357/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02357-1/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 (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 

Marc W. Kane, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-02357-TUC-JGZ (LAB)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman recommending that this matter be remanded 

to the Social Security Commission for further proceedings. (Doc. 20.) In her Report, the 

Magistrate Judge found that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly resolved 

this case by applying the Social Security Grids at Step 5 of the disability analysis rather 

than consulting a vocational expert where Plaintiff is limited to less than a full range of 

light work. (Doc. 20, p. 10.) On October 30, 2014, Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, objected to the Report asserting that the 

Magistrate Judge incorrectly interpreted the ALJ’s findings as to Plaintiff’s exertional 

limitations. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff filed his Reply on November 17, 2014. (Doc. 22.) 

Upon de novo review, the Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Bowman’s plain 

reading of the ALJ’s findings regarding exertional limitations. Moreover, as thoroughly 

explained by the Magistrate Judge, even if the Court were to adopt the Commissioner’s 

urged interpretation, Plaintiff’s exertional capabilities still would not allow him to 

“perform substantially all (nearly all) of the primary strength activities” required for light 

work. See SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at * 5 (defining “the full range of light work [as] 

Case 4:13-cv-02357-JGZ-LAB Document 23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

require[ing] standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours of an 8-

hour workday.”). In other words, whether the ALJ’s finding is interpreted as a total 

standing and walking limitation of three hours out of an eight-hour workday or as a threehour walking limitation plus a three-hour standing limitation, Plaintiff is still limited to 

less than a full range of light work because, at best, he can only perform light work jobs 

where standing and walking occur in near equal amounts. (Doc. 20, p. 11.) Because 

Plaintiff is limited to less than a full range of light work, the ALJ’s failure to consult a 

vocational expert constituted legal error. See Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th 

Cir. 1999) (noting that “[t]he grids should be applied only where a claimant's functional 

limitations fall into a standardized pattern ‘accurately and completely’ described by the 

grids” and that a vocational expert should be consulted where limitations “significantly 

limit the range of work” a person can perform) (citation omitted). As the 

Commissioner’s objection does not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion 

reached by Magistrate Judge Bowman, the Commissioner’s objection is rejected, and the 

Report and Recommendation is adopted. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's final decision in this matter 

is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the Report and 

Recommendation adopted herein. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment 

accordingly and close this case. 

 Dated this 11th day of March, 2015. 

Case 4:13-cv-02357-JGZ-LAB Document 23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 2