Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00614/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00614-1/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

GUY CRISTMAN ABSHER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv0614-WQH-KSC

ORDER

v.

NANCY BERRYHILL, acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

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

(ECF No. 18) issued by United States Magistrate recommending that this Court grant

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) and deny Defendant’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15).

I. Background

On February 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance

benefits, alleging disability beginning June 1, 2010. Plaintiff’s application was denied

at the initial level and upon reconsideration. 

On July 18, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled under

the Social Security Act. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial

gainful activity since the alleged onset date of June 1, 2010. The ALJ found that

Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: status-post left arm amputation,

thrombocytosis, osteoarthritis of the left hip, chronic pain syndrome, degenerative disc

disease of the cervical spine, history of anterior cervical fusion, pitting edema,

- 1 - 16cv641-WQH -KSC

Case 3:16-cv-00614-WQH-KSC Document 19 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

congestive heart failure, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood,

major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and dysthymic disorder. The

ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that

meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments. The ALJ found

that Plaintiff 

has the residual functional capacity to perform light work . . . Specifically, he does not have any functional use of non-dominant left upper extremity; he is precluded from climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; he can frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; he should avoid

working around unprotected heavy machinery, or unprotected heights; he

can understand, remember, and carry out simple job instructions; he can maintain attention and concentration to complete, simple, routine, repetitive tasks; he can have frequent interaction with coworkers,

supervisors, and the general public; he can work in an environment with

occasional changes in work setting and occasional work related decisionmaking.

AR 33. The ALJ found at step four that Plaintiff was capable of performing his past

relevant work as a touch-up painter and further found at step five that Plaintiff has the

residual functional capacity to make a successful adjustment to other work that exists

in significant numbers in the national economy, specifically a host, a barker and a

school bus monitor. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for further review. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the

Social Security Act seeking review of the final decision denying his application for

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. 

On July 17, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 18). The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ erred in concluding that

Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work of

touch-up painter as generally or as actually performed. The Magistrate Judge found that

the determination of the ALJ at step five that Plaintiff can perform other work as a

barker or a host was not supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge

concluded that the record did not establish that Plaintiff has the residual functional

capacity for level three reasoning required for the position of barker and host. The

Magistrate Judge further concluded that the error was harmless because the

- 2 - 16cv641-WQH -KSC

Case 3:16-cv-00614-WQH-KSC Document 19 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

determination of the ALJ that Plaintiff can perform other work as a school bus monitor

was supported by substantial evidence. 

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

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

that the record supports the finding of the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ made a legal

error at step four concluding that Plaintiff “retains the functional capacity to perform

the work of touch-up painter as generally or actually performed.” (ECF No. 18 at 19). 

The Court further concludes that the record supports the finding of the Magistrate Judge

that “the ALJ’s determination [at step five] that plaintiff can perform other work as a

barker or a host is not supported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 21. The Court adopts

the Report and Recommendation as follows: Page 1 line 17 though Page 2 line 14; Page

2 line 19 through Page 15 line 7; Page 15 line 12 through Page 19 line 10; Page 19 line

16 through Page 21 line 7. 

School Bus Monitor

Plaintiff contends that the DOT description of school bus monitor requires

dealing with the general public to an extent that exceeds Plaintiff’s residual functional

capacity. Plaintiff asserts that the conclusion of the ALJ that “he can have frequent

interaction with coworkers, supervisors, and the general public” is not supported by

substantial evidence in the record. (AR 33). Defendant contends that the “ALJ

sufficiently fulfilled his step five burden by finding that Plaintiff could perform work

as a school bus monitor.” (ECF No. 15-1 at 13). 

- 3 - 16cv641-WQH -KSC

Case 3:16-cv-00614-WQH-KSC Document 19 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity specifically included

the ability to “have frequent interaction with coworkers, supervisors, and the general

public.” (AR 33). The ALJ stated in part:

In determining the claimant’s mental residual functional capacity, the

undersigned gives significant weight to the opinions of the State agency psychologists (Ex. 1A, Ex. 2A, Ex. 5A, and Ex. 6A). These opinions are consistent with the sporadic and intermittent mental health treatment

received by the claimant. The undersigned notes there is no medical

source statement from any source that suggests functional limitations more

restrictive than the residual functional capacity found in this decision. 

(AR 38). The ALJ found serious impairments of adjustment disorder with mixed

anxiety and depressed mood, major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder,

and dysthymic disorder. Plaintiff’s mental status examinations throughout the record

indicates underlying depression and depressed mood. Each of the exhibits relied upon

by the ALJ indicate significant impairments of depression with anxiety, suicidal

thoughts, and trouble sleeping. (AR 83, 94, 116, 131). Each of these exhibits indicates

that Plaintiff’s “ability to interact appropriately with the general public” is “moderately

limited.” (AR 90, 115, 122, 137). The “Medicine” section of the Disability Report

states that Plaintiff was taking three prescribed medication for pain, depression, and

sleep. (AR 252-53). The medical evidence in the record does not support the

conclusion that Plaintiff’s mental health has improved to support the finding that

Plaintiff do work which requires frequent interaction with public.1

 

The testimony of the vocational expert conclusively establishes that the position

of school bus monitor requires frequent interaction with the public and required

temperament for dealing with people. The vocational expert testified that the position

is precluded if the hypothetical is modified “from occasional to frequent dealing with

the general public.” (AR 76). See Light v. Social Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 793 (9th

Cir. 1997) (reversing the ALJ decision and remanding where job categories that the ALJ

found suitable were inconsistent with plaintiff’s documented impairments). The Court

1

 Plaintiff’s highest GAF score was 55. (Ex. 11F/6). “A GAF score of 51-60 indicated moderate symptoms . . . moderate difficulty in social, occupational . . . functioning.” (AR 37). 

- 4 - 16cv641-WQH -KSC

Case 3:16-cv-00614-WQH-KSC Document 19 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

concludes that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity

to perform work as a school bus monitor is not supported by substantial evidence in the

record. Defendant has not carried the burden at step five to show that Plaintiff’s

impairments do not prevent him from doing other work. See Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d

1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A]t this last step the burden of proof shifts from the

claimant to the government.”). The Court will remand for further proceedings. See

Strauss v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A

claimant is not entitled to benefits under the statue unless the claimant is, in fact,

disabled, no matter how egregious the ALJ’s errors may be.”). 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

(1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is adopted in part as

follows: Page 1 line 17 though Page 2 line 14; Page 2 line 19 through Page

15 line 7; Page 15 line 12 through Page 19 line 10; Page 19 line 16

through Page 21 line 7, and not adopted as to all other parts; 

(2) the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) filed by Plaintiff is

granted; 

(3) the cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) filed by

Defendant is denied. 

The decision of the ALJ is reversed and 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

- 5 - 16cv641-WQH -KSC

Case 3:16-cv-00614-WQH-KSC Document 19 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5