Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01752/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01752-2/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

17-CV-1752 W (RNB)

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

RONALD HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-1752 W (RNB)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 14];

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [DOC. 15]; AND

(3) REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS

Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by 

Plaintiff Roland Henderson, and by Defendant Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 14]; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 15].) 

Plaintiff moves for a reversal of the administrative decision and an award of 

benefits, while Defendant moves to remand for further administrative proceedings. (Pl.’s 

Mot. [Doc. 14] 10:4–8; Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 15-1] 6:19–23.) Magistrate Judge Robert 

Block has issued a Report & Recommendation recommending a denial of Plaintiff’s 

motion to the extent it requests an immediate award of benefits, a grant of Defendant’s 

Case 3:17-cv-01752-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

17-CV-1752 W (RNB)

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

motion, and a remand for further proceedings. (R&R [Doc. 21].) Plaintiff objects. [Doc. 

22.]

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s motion, GRANTS Defendant’s motion, and remands the case for further 

administrative proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 10, 2013, Plaintiff Ronald Henderson filed an application for 

Supplemental Security Income. (See Administrative Record (“AR”) [Doc. 12-4] 141.) 

His application was denied. (Id. [Doc. 12-4] 95.) It was denied again on reconsideration. 

(Id. [Doc. 12-4] 102.) Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing before an 

administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Id. [Doc. 12-4] 108.) A hearing was held on March 

3, 2016. (Id. [Doc. 12-2] 26.) The ALJ issued a decision dated April 29, 2016, finding 

that Defendant has not been disabled since December 10, 2013, within the meaning of 

section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. (AR [Doc. 12-2] 14.) The ALJ’s 

decision became final on July 7, 2017, when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s 

request for review. (AR [Doc. 12-2] 1–3.)

Plaintiff filed this action on August 30, 2017. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) It was referred to 

a United States Magistrate for a report and recommendation. [Doc. 3.] Plaintiff filed a 

motion for summary judgment on March 23, 2018. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 14].) Defendant 

filed a cross-motion on April 27, 2018. (Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 15].) 

On July 3, 2018, Magistrate Judge Block issued a report and recommendation 

recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied to the extent it seeks an immediate award 

of benefits, that Defendant’s motion be granted, and that the case be remanded for further 

administrative proceedings. (R&R [Doc. 21].) Plaintiff timely objected. [Doc. 22.]

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-01752-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

17-CV-1752 W (RNB)

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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court may set aside a denial of benefits “only if it is not supported by 

substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error.” Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 

1004 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

“The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability.” Id. (quoting Burch v. 

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005)). “Substantial evidence means ‘such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” 

Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Howard v. Heckler, 782 

F.2d 1484, 1486–87 (9th Cir.1986)).

When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation as to a dispositive 

motion, the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition 

that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Defendant Concedes that Reversal of the ALJ Decision is Appropriate.

Defendant concedes that the ALJ erred by finding, without analysis, that Plaintiff 

had past relevant work as a truck driver. (Def.’s MSJ [Doc. 15-1] 1; Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 14] 

5:8–7:10.) 

“Past relevant work” is defined as “work that you have done within the past 15 

years, that was substantial gainful activity, and that lasted long enough for you to learn to 

do it.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.960(b)(1). “Substantial gainful activity is work activity that is 

both substantial and gainful[.].” 20 C.F.R. § 416.972. Put another way, substantial 

gainful activity is “work done for pay or profit that involves significant mental or 

physical activities.” Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 515 (9th Cir. 2001). “Earnings can be 

a presumptive, but not conclusive, sign of whether a job is substantial gainful activity.” 

Id. A person has presumptively engaged in substantial gainful activity if he or she earns 

more than a certain monthly amount. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.974(b)(2)(ii); Substantial 

Case 3:17-cv-01752-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

17-CV-1752 W (RNB)

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

Gainful Activity, Social Security, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/sga.html. That monthly 

figure varies depending on the year in which the work took place. 

The ALJ below concluded without any reasoning that Mr. Henderson had past 

relevant work as a truck driver within the meaning of the applicable regulation, without 

performing the relevant analysis as to whether this work was substantial gainful activity. 

As Defendant concedes, this was error.

The only remaining issue is the appropriate remedy. 

B. Remand for Further Proceedings is Appropriate.

Plaintiff argues for an immediate award of benefits. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 14].) 

Defendant contends that remand for further administrative proceedings is the appropriate

course. (Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 15].) Magistrate Judge Block recommends remand for further 

proceedings. (R&R [Doc. 21].) This recommendation is sound. 

“Usually, ‘[i]f additional proceedings can remedy defects in the original 

administrative proceeding, a social security case should be remanded.’ ” Garrison v. 

Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1019 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 

635 (9th Cir. 1981)). “The Social Security Act, however, makes clear that courts are 

empowered to affirm, modify, or reverse a decision by the Commissioner ‘with or 

without remanding the cause for a rehearing.’ ” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). 

“Accordingly, every Court of Appeals has recognized that 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 generally exercised this 

power when it is clear from the record that a claimant is entitled to benefits, observing on 

occasion that inequitable conduct on the part of the Commissioner can strengthen, though 

not control, the case for such a remand.” Id.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant has the burden of showing that he engaged in 

substantial gainful activity, and that Defendant cannot meet that burden. (Pl.’s Objs.

[Doc. 22] 3:13–5:12.) But in the absence of low monthly earnings, Plaintiff must show

Case 3:17-cv-01752-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

17-CV-1752 W (RNB)

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 absence of substantial gainful activity. See Lewis, 236 F.3d at 515–16. And here, as 

Judge Block’s R&R makes clear, there is a discrepancy in the administrative record as to 

whether Mr. Henderson’s earnings were below the relevant threshold.

Henderson’s work history report indicates that in 2009 he worked as a truck driver 

for the Salvation Army, earning $8.75/hour, 40 hours/week. (AR [Doc. 12-6] 172–178.) 

A simple calculation from these figures yields earnings of approximately $1,400 per 

month. The 2009 monthly cutoff for substantial gainful activity is $980. See 20 C.F.R. § 

416.974(b)(2)(ii); Substantial Gainful Activity, Social Security, 

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/sga.html. Yet Henderson testified that he worked for eight 

months in this position, and his earnings statements reflected total wages of $6,644.23. 

(Id. [Docs. 12-2, 12-5] 29, 151.) This yields an average monthly wage of about $830.53. 

(See Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 14] 6:16–7:10.) Nowhere does Plaintiff explain or clarify this 

discrepancy. 

Further, as Defendant points out, there are several other full-time positions in 

Henderson’s work history report that the ALJ’s opinion does not appear to have 

addressed at all—any one of which could qualify as substantial gainful activity. (Def.’s 

Mot. [Doc. 15] 5:24–6:6; AR [Doc. 12-6] 173–77 (stating that Henderson worked: (1) as a 

warehouse laborer between 1998 and 2011 at $9.00/hour for 40 hours/week; (2) as a 

cashier in 2001 at $8.75/hour for 40 hours/week; (3) as a cook while incarcerated from 

2001 to 2005 at $2.50/hour for 40 hours/week; (4) as a janitor in 2006 at $9.00/hour for

40 hours/week; and (5) as a cashier in 2008 at $8.75/hour for 40 hours/week). Henderson 

testified at his administrative hearing that he had worked no full-time jobs besides the 

Salvation Army truck driver position since 2001. (AR [Doc. 12-2] 36.) Remand for 

further proceedings would allow for clarification on this point. See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 

1019.

Plaintiff argues that the special vocational profile provided by 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1562 should allow the Court to award benefits without remanding for further 

proceedings. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 14] 12.) As this case involves an SSI claim rather than a 

Case 3:17-cv-01752-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

17-CV-1752 W (RNB)

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

claim for disability benefits, the relevant parallel regulation is 20 C.F.R. § 416.962(b). 

That section provides, “[i]f you have a severe, medically determinable impairment(s) (see 

§§ 416.920(c), 416.921, and 416.923), 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.962. The 

applicability of this section depends on whether the claimant has past relevant work 

experience. For the reasons stated above, it is not clear from the existing record that such 

is the case here. Remand for further proceedings is the appropriate course. See Garrison, 

759 F.3d at 1019; Lewin, 654 F.2d at 635.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-01752-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

17-CV-1752 W (RNB)

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

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

[Doc. 14.]

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. [Doc. 15.]

The case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with 

this opinion.

The Clerk is directed to close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01752-W-RNB Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7