Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02050/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02050-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0205 Appointment of Surgeon General

---

1 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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 

EARL J. MACK, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE [ECF Nos. 16, 20] 

Plaintiff Earl J. Mack (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of the determination 

by Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Defendant”), that he is not entitled to supplemental security income (“SSI”) 

benefits. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment [ECF No. 16] be GRANTED, Defendant’s cross-motion [ECF No. 20] 

be DENIED, and the case be remanded for a calculation and award of SSI 

benefits. 

I. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff was born on August 21, 1955. (Admin. R. at 248.) In June 2008, 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 12
2 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

Plaintiff filed an application for SSI, alleging he had been disabled since 1996. 

(Id. at 212-47.) In an application for SSI filed on July 16, 2008, Plaintiff alleged a 

disability onset date of June 1, 2000. (Id. at 248-51, 252-55.) Plaintiff’s 

applications were denied initially on November 25, 2008 and upon 

reconsideration on February 13, 2009. (Id. at 108-11, 117-21.) On March 20, 

2009, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing. (Id. at 123.) A hearing was 

conducted on September 2, 2010 by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Eve B. 

Godfrey, who determined on November 24, 2010 that Plaintiff was not disabled. 

(Id. at 60-80, 89-96.) Plaintiff subsequently requested a review of the ALJ’s 

decision. 

On February 15, 2012, the Appeals Council for the Social Security 

Administration (“SSA”) granted Plaintiff’s request for review, vacated the hearing 

decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Id. at 103-04.) In its 

order remanding the case to the ALJ, the Appeals Council stated: 

The hearing decision found that the claimant had the 

residual functional capacity to perform medium work 

(citation omitted), that he was unable to perform his past 

relevant work, that he was 52 years old on the date the 

application was filed and had a 12th grade education 

(citation omitted). The hearing decision then found that if 

the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform 

the full range of medium work that Medical-Vocational Rule 

203.29 would direct a finding of “not disabled” (citation 

omitted). The claimant’s earning record, however, 

indicates that he has not worked substantial gainful activity 

in the fifteen years prior to the hearing decision, and 

therefore has no past relevant work. In addition, the record 

is unclear as to the claimant’s education, as he had 

reported to the State agency Consultative Examiner, Dr. 

Gregory M. Nicholson, M.D., that he had dropped out of 

school in the 12th grade [Admin. R. at 478] and he testified 

at the hearing that he only completed the 11th grade. In 

addition, the hearing decision did not note that the claimant 

turned age 55 on August 21, 2010, prior to the date of the 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 12
3 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

decision. The Appeals Council notes that if the claimant 

had completed the 12th grade, Medical-Vocational rules 

203.21 and 203.14 would be used, and each directs a 

finding of “not disabled.”1 If the claimant had completed 

only the 11th grade, then Medical-Vocational rules 203.18 

and 203.10 would be used, and while Rule 203.18 directs 

a finding of “not disabled,” Rule 203.10 directs a finding of 

“disabled.”2

(Admin. R. at 103.) The Appeals Council directed the ALJ, upon remand, to 

“further evaluate the claimant’s educational history to determine if the claimant’s 

education had progressed to the 11th grade or 12th grade, and then determine 

and apply the correct Medical-Vocational Rules.” (Id.) 

ALJ Godfrey conducted a second hearing on September 12, 2012 and 

determined on October 24, 2012 that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Id. at 17-24, 53-

59.) With respect to Plaintiff’s education, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “has at least 

a high school education and is able to communicate in English.” (Id. at 23.) The 

ALJ explained further: 

The claimant testified at the prior hearing that he only 

completed 11 years of formal education and did not obtain 

a GED certificate. [¶] The record shows conflicting 

evidence concerning the highest grade that the claimant 

has completed. In his most recent Disability Report (Form 

SSA-3368) completed on December 13, 2010, the claimant 

                                                                

1 Medical-Vocational Rules 203.21 and 203.14 both correspond to a “high school 

graduate or more”, with unskilled or no previous work experience. Rule 203.21 

relates to a person closely approaching advanced age (ages 50-54), while Rule 

203.14 relates to a person of advanced age (55 or higher). As set forth above, 

both 203.21 and 203.14 direct a finding of “not disabled.” 

 2 Medical-Vocational Rules 203.18 and 203.10 both correspond to a person with 

limited education or less, with unskilled or no previous work experience. Rule 

203.18 refers to a person closely approaching advanced age and directs a 

finding of “not disabled.” Rule 203.10 refers to a person of advanced age and 

directs a finding of “disabled.” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 200.00 et 

seq.

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 12
4 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

stated he completed 11 years of formal education (citation 

omitted) (emphasis in original). [¶] However, in the 

Disability Report that was received by the Administration 

on July 16, 2008, the claimant stated that he completed 12 

years of formal education [Admin. R. at 317] (emphasis in 

original). [¶] I give most weight to the earlier record to 

determine the level of education attained by the claimant. 

It was made at a time before the claimant would have been 

aware of any reason to suggest he was less educated. 

Moreover, the claimant’s attorney was invited to produce 

any evidence on this issue in April 2012 and never did so. 

Therefore, I resolve the conflict in the record based on the 

first Disability Report and find that the claimant completed 

12 years of formal education, which is considered a high 

school education. 

(Id.) 

Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ’s decision; the Appeals Council for 

the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied the request on April 21, 2014. 

(Id. at 4-6.) After receiving an extension of time to file a civil action (id. at 2), 

Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Scope of Judicial Review 

Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act allow 

unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s final 

agency decision. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The scope of judicial 

review is limited. The Commissioner’s final decision should not be disturbed 

unless: (1) The ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or (2) are not supported 

by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Schneider v. Comm’r Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2000); Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 

1009 (9th Cir. 2014). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla but 

less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 4 of 12
5 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court must consider the record as a whole, 

weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s 

conclusion. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir. 2001); 

Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 

1988). “The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in 

medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.” Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 

586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039). Where the evidence 

is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s decision must be 

affirmed. Id. at 591 (citation and quotations omitted). 

Section 405(g) permits this Court to enter a judgment affirming, modifying, 

or reversing the Commissioner’s decision. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g). The matter 

may also be remanded to the SSA for further proceedings. Id. 

B. SSA Regulations

Under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g), the SSA uses “different rules” if a claimant 

meets one of the two special medical-vocational profiles described in section 

416.962. “If you meet one of those profiles, we will find that you cannot make an 

adjustment to other work, and that you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)(2). 

Section 416.962 provides: 

If you are at least 55 years old, have no more than a limited 

education, and have no relevant past work experience. If 

you have a severe, medically determinable impairment(s) 

[citations omitted], are of advanced age (age 55 or older, 

see § 416.963), have a limited education or less (see § 

416.964), and have no past relevant work experience (see 

§ 416.965), we will find you disabled. If the evidence 

shows you meet this profile, we will not need to assess your 

residual functional capacity or consider the rules in 

appendix 2 to subpart P of part 404 of this chapter. 

20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b). In evaluating a claimant’s educational level, the SSA 

uses the following categories: illiteracy, marginal education, limited education, 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 5 of 12
6 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

and high school education and above. 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b)(1)-(4). “Limited 

education” and “high school education and above” are defined as follows: 

Limited education. Limited education means ability in 

reasoning, arithmetic, and language skills, but not enough 

to allow a person with these educational qualifications to 

do most of the more complex job duties needed in semiskilled or skilled jobs. We generally consider that a 7th 

grade through the 11th grade level of formal education is a 

limited education. 

High school education and above. High school education 

and above means abilities in reasoning, arithmetic, and 

language skills acquired through formal schooling at a 12th 

grade level or above. 

Id. at § 416.964(b)(3)-(4). The regulations further provide that the numerical 

grade completed in school may not represent actual educational abilities, which 

may be higher or lower. Id. at § 416.964(b). If there is no evidence to contradict 

it, the SSA will use the numerical grade level to determine educational ability. Id. 

“The term education also includes how well you are able to communicate in 

English since this ability is often acquired or improved by education.” Id. 

III. DISCUSSION

 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff has a high school 

education. (Pl.’s Mem. at 5-11.) Defendant contends that it was within the ALJ’s 

purview to resolve the evidentiary conflict regarding Plaintiff’s education level. 

(Def.’s Mem. at 3-4.) 

 Because it is undisputed that Plaintiff has severe impairments (see Admin. 

R. at 19), is of advanced age (he turned 55 years old prior to the ALJ’s first 

decision) and has no past relevant work experience (see id. at 23), whether 

Plaintiff is disabled under 20 C.F.R. § 416.962 turns on whether he has a limited 

education or less. 20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b). The following consists of a 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 6 of 12
7 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

chronology of the evidence and findings relating to Plaintiff’s education contained 

in the record: 

Undated 

(2008) 

Disability Report 

– Adult 

Highest grade of school completed: 

12th grade 

Approximate date completed: 1973 

Did you attend special education 

classes? No 

Admin. 

R. at 317.

9/11/08 UCSD 

Healthcare 

progress note 

“In Special Education in school and 

went to 12th grade but dropped out. 

No GED.” 

Id. at 

447. 

10/28/08 Seagate Medical 

Group evaluation 

“The claimant dropped out of school 

in the 12th grade. He stated he was 

in special education classes at 

school.” 

Id. at 

478. 

9/2/10 First ALJ hearing [ALJ]: And you have a twelfth grade 

education. 

[Plaintiff]: More eleven grade, 

special class. 

Id. at 66. 

11/24/10 First ALJ decision “The claimant has at least a high 

school education and is able to 

communicate in English [citation 

omitted]. 

Id. at 95. 

12/13/10 Disability Report 

– Adult 

Check the highest grade of school 

completed: 11 

Date completed: 6/1972 

Did you attend special education 

classes? Yes 

Id. at 

394. 

2/15/12 Order of Appeals 

Council 

Remanding case to ALJ to “further 

evaluate the claimant’s educational 

history to determine if the claimant’s 

education had progressed to the 11th 

grade or 12th grade . . . .” 

Id. at 

103. 

6/28/12 Letter from 

Plaintiff’s counsel

“I have spoken to Mr. Mack’s sister 

Marjorie Mack. . . . She believes he 

attended the 12th grade but did not 

graduate.” 

Id. at 

410; see 

also id. at 

423.

1/18/13 Declaration by 

Plaintiff’s counsel

“I was first retained by the claimant 

on December 12, 2008. During my 

initial interview with the claimant I 

asked [him] what the highest level of 

Id. at 

424. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 7 of 12
8 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

education was that he had achieved. 

The claimant told me that he 

completed the 11th grade and did not 

receive a high school diploma or a 

GED.” 

 

There is also evidence in the record suggesting that Plaintiff does not read well, 

needs help filling out forms, and is dyslexic. (Id. at 116, 332, 349, 351, 363, 392-

93, 586, 601.) 

 The above chronology demonstrates the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff 

completed twelve years of formal education is not supported by substantial 

evidence in the record. The basis for the ALJ placing greater weight on the 2008 

disability report over the 2010 disability report was that the statement made in the 

2008 report (that he completed 12th grade) was “made at a time before the 

claimant would have been aware of any reason to suggest he was less 

educated.” (Admin. R. at 23.) In 2008, however, Plaintiff stated to both UCSD 

Healthcare and Seagate Medical Group that he dropped out of school in the 12th 

grade. (Id. at 447, 478.) In 2010, at his administrative hearing, Plaintiff testified 

before the ALJ that he had only completed 11th grade. (Id. at 66.) All of these 

statements were made prior to the time he “would have been aware of any 

reason to suggest he was less educated.” In fact, as the ALJ’s 2010 decision did 

not hinge on the issue of Plaintiff’s education, it was not until the 2012 order by 

the Appeals Council that Plaintiff’s level of education came to light as the critical 

factor in his disability determination. Therefore, contrary to the ALJ’s 

determination, even Plaintiff’s statement on his 2010 disability report (that he 

completed eleven grades) was made at a time before he was “aware of any 

reason to suggest he was less educated.” (Id. at 394.) Other than the lone 

statement in his 2008 disability report that he completed 12th grade, Plaintiff has 

always consistently stated that he completed only eleven grades, and dropped 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 8 of 12
9 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

out of school in the 12th grade. Although the Court does not rely on this 

evidence, it notes that Plaintiff’s statements are also consistent with those of his 

sister Marjorie and of his previous attorney. (Id. at 410, 423, 424.)3

 Additionally, Plaintiff has always consistently stated that he attended 

special education classes in school. (Id. at 66, 394, 447, 478, 601.) The only 

time he reportedly indicated differently was in the same 2008 disability report 

upon which the ALJ relies. (See id. at 317.) This discrepancy provides some 

indication that the 2008 disability report (which likely was prepared by someone 

other than Plaintiff) may have contained erroneous information. Moreover, that 

Plaintiff was enrolled in special education classes, coupled with his present 

stated inability to read well and fill out forms on his own (see id. at 116, 332, 349, 

351, 363, 392-93, 586, 601), detracts from the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff has a 

“high school education” as defined by the SSA’s regulations, regardless of what 

grade level he completed. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b) (“The numerical grade 

that you completed in school may not represent your actual educational abilities. 

. . . The term education also includes how well you are able to communicate in 

English.”). 

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the ALJ failed to provide a 

legally sufficient reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony that he completed 11th, not 

12th, grade. The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff has a high school education 

was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Rather, substantial 

evidence in the record demonstrates that Plaintiff has a limited education as 

                                                                

3 Plaintiff’s prior counsel’s letter of January 18, 2013 post-dates both decisions by 

the ALJ. See Hudson v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 433, 435 (9th Cir. 1988) (the district 

court’s function is to review the correctness of the Commissioner’s decision at 

the time it was made); see also Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (a court may properly consider any additional materials submitted to 

the Appeals Council in conjunction with a claimant’s request for review). 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 9 of 12
10 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

defined by the regulations. Accordingly, the Court recommends the case be 

remanded. 

IV. REMEDY

“If additional proceedings can remedy defects in the original administrative 

proceedings, a social security case should be remanded.” Lewin v. Schweiker, 

654 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1981). Courts, however, are “empowered to affirm, 

modify, or reverse a decision by the Commissioner ‘with or without remanding 

the cause for rehearing.’” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1019 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)) 

(emphasis omitted). Thus, in appropriate circumstances, “courts are free to 

reverse and remand a determination by the Commissioner with instructions to 

calculate and award benefits.” Id. Courts have done so when it is clear from the 

record that a claimant is entitled to benefits. Id. 

Before the Court can remand a case to the ALJ with instructions to award 

benefits, three requirements must be met: “(1) the record has been fully 

developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful 

purpose; (2) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting 

evidence, whether claimant testimony or medical opinion; and (3) if the 

improperly discredited evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be required 

to find the claimant disabled on remand.” Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1141 

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1020). Even when these 

requirements are met, the Court retains “flexibility” in determining the appropriate 

remedy. Id. (citing Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021). If the record as a whole creates 

serious doubt as to whether a claimant is disabled, then the case may be 

remanded for further proceedings. 

Here, there is no need to further develop the record or hold further 

administrative proceedings, as there is no further information to be gained 

regarding Plaintiff’s education. The ALJ has already held the record open for 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 10 of 12
11 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

additional information, and Plaintiff submitted what he could; namely, the letter 

setting forth his sister Marjorie’s statement. (Admin. R. at 23, 55-56, 410 [“We 

were unable to obtain any further information.”].) The record is as complete as it 

will ever be. Second, as discussed above, the ALJ failed to provide a legally 

sufficient reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony that he completed 11th, not 12th, 

grade. Third, if the improperly discredited evidence – that Plaintiff completed 

11th grade, dropped out of school in 12th grade, and attended special education 

classes – were credited as true, the ALJ would be required on remand to find that 

Plaintiff has a limited education and is disabled under 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b) (as 

well as 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 203.10 (Medical-Vocational Rule 

203.10)). Because Plaintiff satisfies all three conditions of the credit-as-true rule, 

and a review of the record as a whole casts no serious doubt that Plaintiff is 

disabled and, rather, demonstrates that Plaintiff was disabled as of the date he 

turned 55 years old (August 21, 2010), the Court recommends remand for a 

calculation and award of SSI benefits in a manner consistent with the Court’s 

findings in this matter. 

V. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment be GRANTED, Defendant’s cross-motion be DENIED, 

and the case be remanded for a calculation and award of SSI benefits. 

 This report and recommendation will be submitted to the Honorable William 

Q. Hayes, United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with the 

Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before February 24, 2016. The 

document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

Any reply to the Objections shall be served and filed on or before March 7, 2016. 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 11 of 12
12 

14cv2050 WQH (JMA) 

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

time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

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

Dated: February 10, 2016 

 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-WQH-JMA Document 21 Filed 02/10/16 Page 12 of 12