Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02618/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02618-0/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 

FILED 

APR 0 5 2018 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KRISTEN ALICIA DALE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 1 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 16-cv-2618-W (RNB) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING 

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

(ECF NOS. 16, 19) 

18 This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Thomas J. Whelan, 

19 United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1) and Civil Local Rule 

20 72.l(c). 

21 On October 20, 2016, plaintiff Kristen Alicia Dale filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 

22 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social 

23 Security denying her applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits 

24 and for Supplemental Security Income benefits. (ECF No. 1.) 

25 

26 

27 

1 Nancy A. Berryhill is hereby substituted as the defendant in this case per Fed. R. Civ. 

28 P. 25(d). 

16-cv-2618-W-(RNB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02618-W-RNB Document 23 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
1 Now pending before the Court and ready for decision are the parties' cross-motions 

2 for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS that 

3 plaintiffs motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, that the Commissioner's cross4 motion for summary judgment be DENIED, and that Judgment be entered reversing the 

5 decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative 

6 proceedings. 

7 

8 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

9 On October 25, 2012, plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability and 

10 disability insurance benefits and for Supplemental Security Income benefits, alleging 

11 disability beginning on January 4, 2004 due to back problems, depression, anxiety, alcohol 

12 dependence, alcoholic hepatitis, and liver cirrhosis. (Administrative Record ("AR") 207-

13 08, 294-306.) After her applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration (AR 

14 208, 225), plaintiff requested an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge 

15 ("ALJ"). (AR 227-32.) An administrative hearing was held on November 17, 2014. 

16. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing with counsel, and testimony was taken from her, two 

17 medical experts, and a vocational expert. (AR 75-124.) 

18 As reflected in her March 30, 2015 hearing decision, the ALJ rendered a partially 

19 favorable decision, finding plaintiff disabled as of June 1, 2013. (AR 56-67.) The ALJ's 

20 decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on August 16, 2016, when the 

21 Appeals Council denied plaintiffs request for review. (AR 3-7.) This timely civil action 

22 followed. 

23 

24 II. SUMMARY OF THE ALJ'S FINDINGS 

25 In rendering her decision, the ALJ followed the Commissioner's five-step sequential 

26 evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. At step one, the ALJ found that 

27 plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date, January 

28 4, 2004. (AR 58.) 

2 

16-cv-2618-W-(RNB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02618-W-RNB Document 23 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
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 

At step two, the ALJ found that plaintiff had the following severe impairments: 

"chronic pain syndrome secondary to degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, statuspost L5-S 1 fusion surgery in September 2005 and failed back surgery syndrome; major 

depressive disorder; a history of alcohol/opiate dependence; post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD); and panic disorder with agoraphobia." (AR 59.) The ALJ found that plaintiffs 

impairments caused significant limitations to her ability to perform basic work activities. 

(Id.) 

At step three, the ALJ found that plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination 

of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the impairments listed in the 

Commissioner's Listing of Impairments. (AR 59.) 

Next, the ALJ determined that "[p]rior to June 1, 2013, [plaintiff! had the residual 

functional capacity2 to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 

416.967(a) except lifting no more than 10 pounds frequently; never climbing 

ladders/ropes/scaffolds; no more than occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching, balancing, 

crawling, or climbing stairs/ramps; and no unprotected heights or hazardous machinery. 

The [plaintiff! is further limited to understanding, remembering, and carrying out no more 

than simple, 1-2 step job instructions (SVP 2 and below) with no in-person interaction with 

the public, but telephone interaction is not limited." (AR 60.) However, beginning on June 

1, 2013, plaintiff had the additional limitations of"be[ing] off-task 20% of the workday 

and [missing] 2-4 days per month due to worsening mental health issues and decreased 

concentration issues related to pain and side effects from pain medication." (AR 63.) 

The ALJ then proceeded to step four of the sequential evaluation process. At this 

step, the ALJ found that plaintiff was unable to perform any of her past relevant work. (AR 

64.) For purposes of his step five determination, the ALJ adduced and accepted the 

2 Residual functional capacity ("RFC") is the most an individual can do despite his or her 

limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). 

3 

16-cv-2618-W-(RNB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02618-W-RNB Document 23 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
· 1 testimony of a vocation expert (VE) that, prior to June 1, 2013, an individual with plaintiffs 

2 vocational profile and RFC could perform the following unskilled jobs that existed in 

3 significant numbers in the national economy: document preparer (DOT3 204.587-018); 

4 ticket counter (DOT 219.587-010); and zipper trimmer (DOT 734.687-094). (AR 65-66.) 

5 However, with plaintiffs additional limitations beginning on June 1, 2013, there were no 

6 jobs that an individual with plaintiffs vocational profile and RFC could perform beginning 

7 on that date. (AR 66.) 

8 

9 III. SOLE ISSUE IN DISPUTE 

10 The sole issue in dispute in this case is whether the ALJ committed legal error at 

11 step five of the sequential evaluation process. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the ALJ 

12 erred in accepting the VE's testimony that an individual with plaintiffs vocational profile 

13 and RFC could perform the three jobs identified by the VE. According to plaintiff, the 

14 reasoning levels required for those jobs according to the DOT conflict with the ALJ's 

15 finding that plaintiff was limited to understanding, remembering, and carrying out no more 

16 than simple, 1-2 step job instructions, and the ALJ erred when she failed to question the 

17 VE about this conflict. (See ECF No. 16-1 at 6-9.) In response, the Commissioner 

18 implicitly concedes that the ALJ erred in accepting the VE's testimony, but argues that the 

19 error was harmless with respect to the zipper trimmer job. (ECF No. 19-1 at 5-8.)4 

20 

21 

22 

23 

3 "DOT' refers to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. 

24 

25 4 With respect to the other two jobs identified by the VE (document preparer and ticket 

counter), the Commissioner does not dispute that the ALJ erred or argue that the ALJ's 

26 error was harmless. While the Court concurs with the Commissioner that there are a 

27 sufficient number of zipper trimmer jobs in the San Diego region and nationally to meet 

the Commissioner's burden at step five, the Court disagrees with the Commissioner that 

28 the ALJ's step five error with respect to the zipper trimmer job was harmless. 

4 

16-cv-2618-W-(RNB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02618-W-RNB Document 23 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
1 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

2 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to 

3 determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence and 

4 whether the proper legal standards were applied. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 

5 (9th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence means "more than a mere scintilla" but less than a 

6 preponderance. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 

7 842 (1971); Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 575-76 (9th 

8 Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

9 accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. This Court 

10 must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as supporting evidence. 

11 Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529-30 (9th Cir. 1986). Where evidence is susceptible of 

12 more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's decision must be upheld. 

13 Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1984). 

14 

15 V. DISCUSSION 

16 A. The ALJ's burden to reconcile conflicts between the VE's testimony 

17 and the DOT 

18 At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the Commissioner has the burden 

19 "to identify specific jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that [a] 

20 claimant can perform despite [his] identified limitations." Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 

21 845 (9th Cir. 2015) (alterations in original) (quoting Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 

22 1432 (9th Cir. 1995)) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g)). In making a disability determination 

23 at this step, the ALJ relies primarily on the DOT for "information about the requirements 

24 of work in the national economy." Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 

25 2007). "The DOT describes the requirements for each listed occupation, including the 

26 necessary General Education Development ('GED') levels; that is, 'aspects of education 

27 (formal and informal) ... required of the worker for satisfactory job performance."' 

28 Zavalin, 778 F.3d at 846 (quoting DOT, App. C, 1991 WL 688702 (4th ed. 1991)). "The 

5 

l 6-cv-2618-W-(RNB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02618-W-RNB Document 23 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
1 GED levels [include] the reasoning ability required to perform the job, ranging from Level 

2 1 (which requires the least reasoning ability) to Level 6 (which requires the most)." Id. 

3 (citing DOT, App. C, 1991WL688702). 

4 In addition to the DOT, the ALJ "uses testimony from vocational experts to obtain 

5 occupational evidence." Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1153; see also Zavalin, 778 F.3d at 846. 

6 Generally, the VE's testimony should be consistent with the DOT. See Social Security 

7 Ruling ("SSR")5 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *2 (Dec. 4, 2000); Massachi, 486 F.3d at 

8 1153. But when conflicts occur, neither the DOT nor the VE's evidence automatically 

9 trumps. Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1153 (citing SSR 00-4p at *2). "Thus, the ALJ must first 

10 determine whether a conflict exists." Id. 

11 "When there is an apparent conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and 

12 the DOT-for example, expert testimony that a claimant can perform an occupation 

13 involving DOT requirements that appear more than the claimant can handle-the ALJ is 

14 required to reconcile the inconsistency." Zavalin, 778 F.3d at 846 (citing Massachi, 486 

15 F.3d at 1153-54). The ALJ must ask the VE whether his or her testimony conflicts with 

16 the DOT. Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1153-54; SSR 00-4p at *4. Ifit does conflict, "the ALJ 

17 must then determine whether the vocational expert's explanation for the conflict is 

18 · reasonable and whether a basis exists for relying on the expert rather than the [DOT]." Id. 

19 at 1153. A failure to ask the VE whether his or her testimony conflicts with the DOT may 

20 be harmless error if there is no conflict, or if the VE provides "sufficient support for [his 

21 or] her conclusion so as to justify any potential conflicts." Id at 1154, n.19; see also Hann 

22 v. Colvin, No. 12-cv-06234, 2014 WL 1382063, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014). 

23 

24 

25 

26 5 "SSRs reflect the official interpretation of the [Social Security Administration] and are 

27 entitled to 'some deference' as long as they are consistent with the Social Security Act and 

regulations." Avenetti v. Barnhart, 456 F.3d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Ukolov, 28 420 F.3d at 1005 n.2). 

6 

l 6-cv-2618-W-(RNB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02618-W-RNB Document 23 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
1 2. Analysis 

2 The DOT identifies the occupation of zipper trimmer as requiring a reasoning level 

3 of2. See DOT 734.687-094, available at 1991WL679969. The DOT defines Reasoning 

4 Level Two as follows: "Apply commonsense understanding to carry out detailed but 

5 uninvolved written or oral instructions. Deal with problems involving a few concrete 

6 variables in or from standardized situations." APPENDIX C - COMPONENTS OF THE 

7 DEFINITION TRAILER, 1991 WL 688702. By way of contrast, the DOT defines 

8 Reasoning Level One as follows: "Apply commonsense understanding to carry out simple 

9 one- or two-step instructions. Deal with standardized situations with occasional or no 

10 variables in or from this situations encountered on the job." Id. 

11 In Rounds v. Comm 'r Social Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth 

12 Circuit held that an apparent conflict exists between an RFC that limits a person to one13 and two-step tasks and the demands of Level Two reasoning, which requires a person to 

14 "carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions." Rounds, 807 F.3d at 1003 

15 ("Only tasks with more than one or two steps would require 'detailed' instructions."); see 

16 also Tester v. Colvin, 624 F. App'x 485, 487-88 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding that the plaintiffs 

17 RFC for "simple, 1-2 step work" is in apparent conflict with Reasoning Level Two). In 

18 making this determination, the Ninth Circuit relied on the close similarity in language 

19 between reasoning level one, which includes the limitation to carrying out "simple one- or 

20 two-step instructions," and the plaintiffs RFC limitation to "one to two step tasks." 

21 Rounds, 807 F.3d at 1003. 

22 Based on the reasoning of Rounds, the Court finds that there was an apparent conflict 

23 between the VE's testimony that an individual with plaintiffs vocational profile and RFC 

24 could perform the zipper trimmer job and the DOT, which the ALJ failed to address. 

25 Similar to Rounds, "[b]ecause the ALJ did not recognize the apparent conflict between 

26 [plaintiffs J RFC and the demands of Level Two reasoning, the VE did not address whether 

27 the conflict could be resolved." Rounds, 807 F.3d at 1004. As a result, the Court is unable 

28 

7 

l 6-cv-2618-W-(RNB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02618-W-RNB Document 23 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
• 

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 determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's step five finding with respect 

to the zipper trimmer job. 

In Rounds, the Ninth Circuit also found that the ALJ's failure to reconcile this 

apparent conflict was not harmless. It reasoned as follows: 

"In his RFC assessment, the ALJ did not merely restrict Rounds to 'simple' 

or 'repetitive' tasks. Instead, he expressly limited her to 'one to two step 

tasks,' apparently to address her 'moderate' problems with memory and 

concentration. There is no explanation in the record as to why the VE or the 

ALJ may have believed that Rounds' specific limitation to "one to two step 

tasks" should not be taken at face value. As such, the record does not support 

a conclusion that the ALJ's failure to resolve this apparent conflict was 

harmless error. This Court "cannot affirm the decision of an agency on a 

ground that the agency did not invoke in making its decision." Zavalin, 778 

F.3d at 848 (quoting Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1054 

(9th Cir.2006)) (holding that ALJ's failure to reconcile apparent conflict 

between RFC and DOT was not harmless error)." Rounds, 807 F.3d at 1004. 

The Ninth Circuit's rationale for rejecting the Commissioner's harmless error 

argument in Rounds applies with equal force here. The Court therefore recommends that 

this case be remanded for further proceedings to enable the ALJ to determine (a) whether 

there is a reasonable explanation to justify relying on the VE's previous testimony and/or 

(b) whether the VE is able to identify other jobs that require level one reasoning and are 

suitable for someone with plaintiffs limitations prior to June 1, 2013. See Rounds, 807 

F.3d at 1004 & n.5; see also Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012); Benecke 

v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). 

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court RECOMMENDS that plaintiffs motion for 

summary judgment be GRANTED, that the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary 

judgment be DENIED, and that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the 

Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings. 

8 

16-cv-2618-W-(RNB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02618-W-RNB Document 23 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
1 Any party having objections to the Court's proposed findings and recommendations 

2 shall serve and file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a 

3 copy of this Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objections 

4 should be captioned "Objections to Report and Recommendation." A party may respond 

5 to the other party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of the 

6 objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). See id. 

7 

8 Dated: April 5, 2018 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9 

l 6-cv-2618-W-(RNB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02618-W-RNB Document 23 Filed 04/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9