Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02129/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02129-0/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

27

28

08cv2129 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA RAMOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08-2129-WQH(WVG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 12, 15)

Plaintiff Maria Ramos (hereafter “Plaintiff”), filed a

Complaint For Judicial Review And Remedy On Administrative Decision

Under The Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. §405(g)]. Defendant

Michael J. Astrue (hereafter “Defendant”), filed an Answer to the

Complaint and the administrative record (hereafter “Tr.”), pertaining to this case. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant has filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and the

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 15
 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

08cv2129 2

administrative record filed by Defendant, hereby finds that

Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested and therefore

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED

and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED. 

 I

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 22 and August 24, 2004, Plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income, alleging that she was disabled since July 7, 2003. (Tr. 274-

279). The Commissioner of Social Security denied her applications

and the Appeals Council remanded the case for a further hearing.

(Tr. 163-164, 235-242, 259-262). On February 21 and 26, 2007,

hearings were held at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and

testified before an Administrative Law Judge (hereafter “ALJ”) (Tr.

117-162). On May 27, 2007, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not

disabled given her residual functional capacity for a reduced range

of light work. (Tr. 16-31). The ALJ’s decision became the final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals

Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (Tr. 4-8). 

 II

 SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW

Title II of the Social Security Act (hereinafter “Act”), as

amended, provides for the payment of insurance benefits to persons

who have contributed to the program and who suffer from a physical

or mental disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423 (a)(1)(D). Title XVI of the

Act provides for the payment of disability benefits to indigent

persons under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. § 1382

(a). Both titles of the Act define “disability” as the “inability

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 15
 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

08cv2129 3

to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be

expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12

months...” Id. The Act further provides that an individual:

shall be determined to be under a disability only if

his physical or mental impairment or impairments are

of such severity that he is not only unable to do his

previous work but cannot, considering his age,

education, and work experience, engage in any other

kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the

national economy, regardless of whether such work

exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or

whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or

whether he would be hired if he applied for work. Id.

The Secretary of the Social Security Administration has

established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

Step one determines whether the claimant is engaged in “substantial

gainful activity.” If he is, disability benefits are denied. 20

C.F. R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If he is not, the decision

maker proceeds to step two, which determines whether the claimant

has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.

That determination is governed by the “severity regulation” at issue

in this case. The severity regulation provides in relevant part:

If you do not have any impairment or combination of

impairments which significantly limits your physical

or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will

find that you do not have a severe impairment and are,

therefore, not disabled. We will not consider your

age, education, and work experience. §§ 404.1520(c),

416.920(c). 

The ability to do basic work activities is defined as “the

abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1521(b), 416.921(b). Such abilities and aptitudes include

“[p]hysical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting,

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 15
 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

08cv2129 4

pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling;” “[c]apacities

for seeing, hearing, and speaking;” “[u]nderstanding, carrying out,

and remembering simple instructions;” [u]se of judgment;”

“[r]esponding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual

work situations;” and “[d]ealing with changes in a routine work

setting.” Id. 

If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or

combination of impairments, the disability claim is denied. 

If the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to the

third step, which determines whether the impairment is equivalent to

one of a number of listed impairments that the Secretary acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the impairment meets or

equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is conclusively

presumed to be disabled. If the impairment is not one that is

conclusively presumed to be disabling, the evaluation proceeds to

the fourth step, which determines whether the impairment prevents

the claimant from performing work he has performed in the past. If

the claimant is able to perform his previous work, he is not

disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant

cannot perform his previous work, the fifth and final step of the

process determines whether he is able to perform other work in the

national economy in view of his age, education, and work experience.

The claimant is entitled to disability benefits only if he is not

able to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). 

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 15
 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

08cv2129 5

 III

 ALJ’S FINDINGS

The ALJ made the following pertinent findings:

1. (Plaintiff) meets the insured status requirements

of the Social Security Act through December 30, 2009.

2. (Plaintiff) engaged in substantial gainful activity

in 2003 and for the first seven months of 2004. She

has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since

August 1, 2004.

(Plaintiff’s) 2003 earnings record reflects earnings

from an electronics firm and self-employment income,

and (Plaintiff) has acknowledged she worked for an

electronics firm and as a self-employed baby sitter.

According to (Plaintiff), she began babysitting in

2003 and babysat two boys, ages ten and seven.

Although she could not remember the exact date she

began babysitting, she recalled that she begun

babysitting when she stopped working at the electronics company. She continued babysitting until sometime

in July 2004, when the mother of the two boys sent the

children to live with their grandmother in Alabama.

3. (Plaintiff) has had the following severe combination of impairments: a history of right shoulder

impingement syndrome, status-post subacromial decompression surgery, and depressive disorder.

These impairments, considered in combination, had more

than a minimal effect on (Plaintiff’s) ability to

perform basic work-related activities.

From a mental standpoint, (Plaintiff) had no more than

mild restriction in activities of daily living, mild

difficulties in maintaining social functioning, mild

difficulties in maintaining the concentration,

persistence, or pace needed for simple repetitive

tasks to detailed but non-complex tasks, and moderateto-marked difficulties in maintaining the concentration, persistence, or pace needed for the performance

of complex tasks. (Plaintiff) has one-to-two episodes

of decompensation.

4. (Plaintiff) has not had an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one

the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart

P, Appendix 1.

No physician has opined that (Plaintiff’s) condition

meets or equals any listing, and the State Agency

physicians opined that it does not.

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 15
 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

08cv2129 6

5. After careful consideration of the entire record,

the undersigned finds that (Plaintiff) has had the

residual functional capacity to do the following: lift

up to ten pounds frequently; lift up to twenty pounds

occasionally; sit for six hours in an eight-hour day;

stand and/or walk for six hours in an eight-hour day;

and perform simple repetitive work and detailed work

without public contact. She should not engage in

overhead reaching, pushing, or pulling with the right

arm. Nor should she squat, crawl, or operate foot

controls.

(Plaintiff) alleges disability commencing July 3,

2003, due to physical and mental limitations. Her

former attorney argues that (Plaintiff’s) medications

slowed her thought processes and impaired her ability

to concentrate. (Plaintiff’s) former attorney further

contended that (Plaintiff) was limited by chronic

shoulder, neck, hip, and back pain as well as mental

fatigue. According to her present attorney, (Plaintiff) has been limited to no more that sedentary work

(i.e. lifting and carrying limited to ten pounds

occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently,

standing or walking for less than four hours in an

eight-hour day in thirty-minute increments, and

sitting for less than six hours in an eight-hour day

in fifteen-minute increments.) (Plaintiff’s)present

attorney further argues that (Plaintiff) had additional non-exertional limitations due to depression.

After considering the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that (Plaintiff’s) medically determinable

impairments could reasonably be expected to produce

the alleged symptoms, but that (Plaintiff’s) statements concerning the intensity, persistence and

limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely

credible.

The undersigned, having considered all of the functional capacity assessments, finds that the aboveadopted residual functional capacity most accurately

represents (Plaintiff’s) degree of limitation. The

assessments of (doctors who opined as to Plaintiff’s

functional capacity) all allow for the performance of

light work activity.

Turning to (Plaintiff’s) mental capacity, (Plaintiff’s) medical records show that (she) was treated

for depression due to symptoms of depressed mood,

depressed affect, tearfulness, diminished energy, and

motivation, and feelings of hopelessness. However, her

thought processes remained logical and she had no

suicidal ideation. Prescription medications have

varied and have included medications such as Prozac,

Wellbutrin, Trazadone, Lorazepam, and Zoloft. 

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 6 of 15
 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

08cv2129 7

(After) considering the (psychological assessments of

Plaintiff), the undersigned finds the above-adopted

residual functional capacity most accurately represents (Plaintiff’s) limitations during the time period

in issue.

While the undersigned is sympathetic with the difficulties that (Plaintiff) has been experiencing, they

do not support a conclusion of “disability” under the

Act. The undersigned has considered (Plaintiff’s)

allegations of pain, excess pain, and limitations

pursuant to the law of the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals, Social Security Ruling 96-7p, and the

pertinent regulations. However, (Plaintiff’s)

allegations of disability are not credible to the

extent alleged.

6. (Plaintiff) has been capable of performing her past

relevant work as a certified nurse’s assistant/escort,

as actually performed, a children’s monitor as

actually performed, and an upholsterer sewer job as

generally performed. These jobs do not require the

performance of work-related activities precluded by

(Plaintiff’s) residual functional capacity.

The vocational expert identified (Plaintiff’s) past

relevant work as follows: a certified nurses assistant/escort (DOT# 355.674-014), a semi-skilled

occupation customarily performed at a medium

exertional level but actually performed at a light

exertional level; a stock clerk/parts and order clerk

(DOT# 249.367-058), a semi-skilled occupation customarily performed at a light level of exertion; a

housekeeper (DOT# 321.137-010), an unskilled occupation customarily performed at a light level of

exertion; a housekeeping supervisor (DOT# 323.137-

010), an occupation performed at a medium exertional

level customarily skilled in nature but not actually

performed as semi-skilled in nature; a

babysitter/children’s monitor (DOT# 301.677-010),

semi-skilled occupation customarily performed at a

medium exertional level and actually performed at a

light exertional level; and an upholstery

sewer/seamstress (Dot# 780.682-018) a semi-skilled

occupation customarily performed at a light exertional

level.

When the vocational expert was posed with a hypothetical question considering (Plaintiff’s) physical

residual functional capacity as adopted above, she

opined that (Plaintiff) could perform (her) past

relevant work as a certified nurse’s assistant/escort,

as actually performed, a children’s monitor as

actually performed, and an upholsterer sewer job.

When asked to consider a hypothetical individual with

a physical residual functional capacity for light work

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 7 of 15
 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

08cv2129 8

and a mental limitation restricting her to simplerepetitive-tasks and detailed tasks with no public

contact, the vocational expert concluded the hypothetical individual would be able to perform the same past

relevant work. She further testified that her

opinions were consistent with the Dictionary of

Occupational Titles.

7. (Plaintiff) has not been under a disability, as

defined in the Social Security Act, from July 7, 2003

through the date of this decision.

(Tr. 22-31)(citations omitted).

 IV

THE ALJ ERRED IN FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF COULD PERFORM HER PAST

RELEVANT WORK BY RELYING ON VOCATIONAL EXPERT TESTIMONY WITHOUT

ESTABLISHING THAT THE TESTIMONY WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE DICTIONARY

 OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES

 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff

could perform her past relevant work. Specifically, Plaintiff

contends that the ALJ relied on expert vocational testimony

regarding what jobs Plaintiff could perform, but did not establish

that the evidence was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational

Titles (hereafter “DOT”). Defendant asserts that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s findings.

1. Past Relevant Work

The ALJ found that Plaintiff was capable of performing her

past relevant work as a Nurse’s Assistant, as actually performed, a

Children’s Monitor, as actually performed, and an Upholsterer Sewer

job, as generally performed. However, the evidence in the record

regarding these jobs is scant. Plaintiff reported that her previous

job as a Nurse’s Assistant consisted of helping patients make their

beds, escorting patients to a room where they could eat their meals

and escorting them back to their rooms, logging what patients ate,

and helping pick up trash. (Tr. 44-45, 143-144, 310, 316).

Plaintiff reported that her previous job as a Children’s Monitor

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 8 of 15
 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

08cv2129 9

consisted of watching two children, ages 7 and 10, feeding them preprepared food, and picking them up from school in her car and taking

them to their home or her home. (Tr. 137, 141-143). Plaintiff merely

reported that she previously held a job as a seamstress. However,

no details about this job were presented. (Tr. 147). Here, the Court

concludes that since the evidence of how Plaintiff actually

performed the jobs of Nurse’s Assistant and Child Monitor was

sketchy at best, it can not conclude that Plaintiff was capable of

performing these jobs as actually performed. Further, since no

evidence was presented regarding the Upholsterer Sewer job, the

Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff was capable of performing that

job either. 

2. Vocational Expert Testimony

The ALJ and Plaintiff’s attorney asked the vocational expert

several hypothetical questions regarding what jobs a person with

Plaintiff’s limitations could perform. (Tr. 151-161). 

If a claimant cannot return to her former job, the ALJ must

identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the

national economy that the claimant can perform, despite her

identified limitations. A vocational expert witness may be required

to identify jobs that match the abilities of the claimant, given her

limitations. Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995)

Social Security Ruling 00-4p (hereafter “SSR 00-4p”) states

in pertinent part that “(w)hen a (vocational expert)... provides

evidence about the requirements of a job or occupation, the

adjudicator has an affirmative responsibility to ask about any

possible conflict between that (vocational expert)... evidence and

information provided in the (DOT).”(emphasis added)

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 9 of 15
 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

08cv2129 10

SSR 00-4p further provides that the adjudicator “will ask”

the vocational expert “if the evidence he or she has provided is

consistent with the (DOT) and obtain a reasonable explanation for

any apparent conflict.” SSR 00-4p at *4 (emphasis added); Massachi

v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007).

An ALJ may rely on expert testimony which contradicts the

DOT, but only insofar as the record contains persuasive evidence to

support the deviation. Johnson, 60 F.3d at 1435.

The procedural requirements of SSR 00-4p ensure that

the record is clear as to why an ALJ relied on a

vocational expert’s testimony, particularly in cases

where the expert’s testimony conflicts with the

(DOT)... (T)he Social Security Administration relies

primarily on the (DOT) for ‘information about the

requirements of work in the national economy.’ The

Social Security Administration also uses testimony

from vocational experts to obtain occupational

evidence. Although evidence provided by a vocational

expert ‘generally should be consistent’ with the

(DOT), neither the (DOT) nor the (vocational expert)... evidence automatically ‘trumps when there is

a conflict.’ Thus, the ALJ must first determine

whether a conflict exists. If it does, the ALJ must

then determine whether the vocational expert’s

explanation for the conflict is reasonable and whether

a basis exists for relying on the expert rather that

the (DOT).

Massachi, 406 F.3d at 1153 (citations omitted)(emphasis added).

The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional

capacity to do the following: lift up to ten pounds frequently; lift

up to twenty pounds occasionally; sit for six hours in an eight-hour

day; stand and/or walk for six hours in an eight-hour day; and

perform simple repetitive work and detailed work without public

contact. She should not engage in overhead reaching, pushing, or

pulling with the right arm. Nor should she squat, crawl, or operate

foot controls. Further, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had mild

restriction in activities of daily living, mild difficulties in

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 10 of 15
 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 1/ Some of the hypothetical questions asked by the ALJ and Plaintiff’s

attorney and the answers thereto are not entirely clear.

08cv2129 11

maintaining social functioning, mild difficulties in maintaining the

concentration, persistence, or pace needed for simple repetitive

tasks to detailed but non-complex tasks, and moderate-to-marked

difficulties in maintaining the concentration, persistence, or pace

needed for the performance of complex tasks. The ALJ concluded that

Plaintiff was capable of performing her past relevant work as a

certified Nurse’s Assistant, a Children’s Monitor, and an Upholsterer Sewer. (Tr. 30). The ALJ stated that these jobs do not

require the performance of work-related activities precluded by

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.

Nevertheless, the ALJ and Plaintiff’s attorney questioned the

vocational expert about what jobs a person with Plaintiff’s

limitations could perform. (Tr. 151-161).1/ Specifically, the ALJ

asked whether a hypothetical individual could do her past relevant

work if she had the limitations of ability to carry 20 pounds

occasionally and ten pounds frequently, stand and walk six out of

eight hours a day, no reaching overhead with the right extremity and

occasional climbing. The Court notes that this hypothetical question

reasonably included all of Plaintiff’s physical limitations. The

vocational expert responded to the hypothetical question that the

hypothetical individual could perform the past relevant work of a

nurse’s assistant, and a children’s monitor. (Tr. 151-152). 

Thereafter, the ALJ asked the vocational expert whether the

hypothetical individual noted above could do her past relevant work

but also had a mild limitation in her ability to complete detailed

tasks, moderate to complex tasks, and a mild limitation in interactCase 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 11 of 15
 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

2/ The record reflects that the ALJ also asked the vocational expert

if, given a hypothetical individual with all of Plaintiff’s physical

and psychological limitations, were there other jobs she could

perform? The vocational expert responded by stating that the

hypothetical individual could perform the work of a production

inspector (DOT 669.687-014) and an assembler (DOT 715.687) (Tr. 153-

154).

The Court notes that the ALJ asked the vocational expert several

more hypothetical questions that did not completely address all of

Plaintiff’s physical and mental limitations. (Tr. 154-157). The

Court also notes that Plaintiff’s attorney asked the vocational

expert a hypothetical question. However, the vocational expert’s

response to that question was unclear. (Tr. 157-161). 

08cv2129 12

ing with peers. The Court notes that this hypothetical question

reasonably included all of Plaintiff’s psychological limitations.

The vocational expert responded to the hypothetical question that

the hypothetical individual could not perform her past relevant

work. (Tr. 153).2/

Nonetheless, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could perform

her past relevant work as a Nurse’s Assistant, a Children’s Monitor

and an Upholsterer Sewer. Further, the vocational expert testified

that her testimony regarding the jobs Plaintiff could perform were

consistent with the DOT (Tr. 161). However, the Court’s review of

the DOT for these jobs shows that Plaintiff can not perform them.

1. Nurse’s Assistant

The ALJ did not ask the vocational expert about any possible

conflict between her testimony and the evidence provided by the DOT.

Had the ALJ asked about a conflict, or reviewed the DOT’s description of a Nurse’s Assistant, she would have found that a Nurse’s

Assistant must exert 20 to 50 pounds of force occasionally and 10 to

25 pounds of force frequently. Additionally, the physical demand

requirement for this job is in excess of light work. Further, the

job requires that a Nurse’s Assistant must perform effectively under

stress and must reach frequently. (DOT 355.674-014). Therefore,

Plaintiff would not be able to perform this job. As a result, there

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 12 of 15
 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

3/ The Court notes that Plaintiff could not perform the other jobs that

the vocational expert opined she could perform. A production

inspector must reach frequently (continued) 

(continued)

(DOT 669.687-014 Dowel Inspector). An assembler must reach constantly

(DOT 715.687.010 Band Attacher). Therefore, Plaintiff would not be able

08cv2129 13

is a conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the

evidence provided by the DOT. The ALJ failed to discharge her

duties pursuant to SSR 00-4p.

2. Child Monitor

The ALJ did not ask the vocational expert about any possible

conflict between her testimony and the evidence provided by the DOT.

Had the ALJ asked about a conflict, or reviewed the DOT’s description of a Child Monitor, she would have found that a Child Monitor

must exert 20 to 50 pounds of force occasionally and 10 to 25 pounds

of force frequently. Further, the job requires that a Child Monitor

must reach frequently. (DOT 301.677-010). Therefore, Plaintiff

would not be able to perform this job. As a result, there is a

conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the evidence

provided by the DOT. The ALJ failed to discharge her duties

pursuant to SSR 00-4p.

3. Upholstery Sewer

The ALJ did not ask the vocational expert about any possible

conflict between her testimony and the evidence provided by the DOT.

Had the ALJ asked about a conflict, or reviewed the DOT’s description of an Upholstery Sewer, she would have found that an Upholstery

Sewer must exert 20 pounds of force occasionally and must reach

constantly. (DOT 780.682-018). Therefore, Plaintiff would not be

able to perform this job. As a result, there is a conflict between

the vocational expert’s testimony and the evidence provided by the

DOT. The ALJ failed to discharge her duties pursuant to SSR 00-4p.3/

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 13 of 15
 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

to perform these jobs.

08cv2129 14

As a result, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment be GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be DENIED. Further, the Court RECOMMENDS that this case be

REMANDED to the ALJ so that she can discharge her duties pursuant to

SSR 00-4p.

 V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

After a review of the record in this matter, the undersigned

Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be

DENIED. Further, the Court RECOMMENDS that this case be REMANDED to

the ALJ so that she can discharge her duties pursuant to SSR 00-4p.

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate

Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than August 20, 2010, any party

to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve

a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections

to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than

September 7, 2010. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise 

those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 14 of 15
 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

08cv2129 15

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 29, 2010

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02129-WQH-WVG Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 15 of 15