IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

 

 

JANNA L. ROBERTS,

Plaintiff, 6:14-cv-01111-MC

OPINION AND ORDER

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

MCSHANE, Judge:

Plaintiff Janna L. Roberts filed this action October 15, 2010, seeking judicial review of 

the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for disability 

benefits under Title II and supplemental security income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social 

Security Act (the "Act"). This court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). 

The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ erred in several respects and moves (# 18) for 

remand. The parties disagree on whether the court should remand for further administrative 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 10
proceedings or for payment of benefits. For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner’s 

decision is REVERSED and this matter is remanded for payment of benefits.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The decision whether to remand for further proceedings or for immediate payment of 

benefits is within the discretion of the court. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000). The issue turns on the utility of further proceedings. A 

remand for an award of benefits is appropriate when no useful purpose would be served by 

further administrative proceedings or when the record has been fully developed and the evidence 

is insufficient to support the Commissioner’s decision. Strauss v. Comm’r, 635 F.3d 1135, 1138-

39 (9th Cir. 2011)(quoting Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004)). The court 

may not award benefits punitively, and must conduct a “credit-as-true” analysis to determine if a 

claimant is disabled under the Act. Id at 1138. 

Under the “credit-as-true” doctrine, evidence should be credited and an immediate award 

of benefits directed where: (1) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for 

rejecting such evidence; (2) there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved before a 

determination of disability can be made; and (3) it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be 

required to find the claimant disabled were such evidence credited. Id. The “credit-as-true” 

doctrine is not a mandatory rule in the Ninth Circuit, but leaves the court flexibility in 

determining whether to enter an award of benefits upon reversing the Commissioner’s decision. 

Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 876 (citing Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 2003)

(en banc)). The reviewing court should decline to credit testimony when “outstanding issues” 

remain. Luna v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ did not properly assess the medical opinion of 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 10
an examining physician, the disability opinion of the Vocational Rehabilitation Division, 

Plaintiff’s credibility, and lay witness statements, resulting in an improper residual functional 

capacity assessment. The Commissioner argues unresolved issues remain and there is serious 

doubt as to whether Plaintiff is in fact disabled. 

A. Frances J. Storrs, M.D.

Dr. Storrs, a dermatologist, examined Plaintiff in April 2003, and conducted patch tests of

Plaintiff’s skin. Tr. 574-99. He diagnosed an allergic contact dermatitis to formaldehyde, 

quaternium-15, cinnamic aldehyde, and fragrance. Tr. 580. Dr. Storrs told Plaintiff to avoid 

products containing formaldehyde and provided lists of products to avoid. Tr. 581, 589-94. 

The ALJ did not address Dr. Storrs’ opinion.

The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ erred, but argues that Dr. Storrs’ opinion should

not be credited as true because the record is ambiguous. The Commissioner contends that the 

August 2008 examination of Plaintiff by John French, M.D., did not result in limitations arising 

from an allergy to formaldehyde. Dr. French examined Plaintiff at the request of Vocational 

Rehabilitation to assess functional limitations. Tr. 612-14. Dr. French noted in the first 

paragraph of his report that Plaintiff showed him “some records that she brought in from the 

medical school dermatology clinic where she was noted to have a formaldehyde allergy and an 

allergy to Quaternium-15, various fragrance[s], cinnamic aldehyde, and nickel.” Tr. 612. Under 

“Allergies,” Dr. French wrote “aloe.” Tr. 613. Under “Dermatologic” he wrote “Positive for nail

changes. Type: splitting. Puritus,” and under “Immunology” he wrote “positive for contact 

dermatitis. Type: latex.” Tr. 614. 

The Commissioner cites a May 2010 chart note where a treating physician and treating 

nurse did not assess Plaintiff with any limitations in work-related exposure to formaldehyde. Tr. 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 10
763. The cited records indicate that Plaintiff called Kaiser Permanente requesting a note 

excusing her from court mandated community service. Tr. 762. Mark W. Olson, M.D., noted 

Plaintiff should “avoid latex gloves but non-latex gloves are ok, “ and limited her to lifting no 

more than 20 pounds due to tendonitis. Tr. 763.

The Commissioner contends that the evidence regarding Dr. Storrs’ diagnosis is 

ambiguous and contradictory. It is not. The ALJ failed to state any reason for rejecting Dr. 

Storrs’ uncontradicted opinion, and the opinion is credited as true.

B. Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation Division

Ronald Kittelson is a counselor at the Oregon State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services where Plaintiff received intermittent services from January 2008 to December 2013. Tr.

304-520. In September 2008 Mr. Kittelson found Plaintiff “Most Significantly Disabled,” and 

determined Plaintiff had impediments to employment, including social isolation, cognitive 

deficits, and a lack of physical or emotional stamina to perform essential functions of work. Tr. 

331.

The Vocational Rehabilitation definition of “Individual with a significant disability” is: 

“an individual with a disability. . .Who has a severe physical or 

mental impairment that seriously limits one or more functional 

capacities (such as mobility, communication, self-care, selfdirection, interpersonal skills, work tolerance, or work skills)

in terms of an employment outcome; (ii) Whose vocational

rehabilitation can be expected to require multiple vocational

rehabilitation services over an extended period of time; and

(iii) Who has one or more physical or mental disabilities 

resulting from. . .mental illness. . .or another disability. . . .

34 C.F.R. § 361.5(b)(31).

The Vocational Rehabilitation determination of disability is not binding on the Social 

Security Administration. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. However, Social Security Ruling 06-3p states 

that “evidence of a disability decision by another governmental...agency cannot be ignored and 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 4 of 10
must be considered. The Ruling states that “the adjudicator should explain the consideration 

given to these decisions. . . .”

The Ninth Circuit has determined that an ALJ must ordinarily give great weight to a 

Veterans Administration determination of disability. McCartey v. Massanari 298 F.3d 1072, 

1076 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit noted that the programs are similar but not identical.

The Vocational Rehabilitation disability criteria are similar to the SSA criteria, and the 

ALJ is required to give “persuasive, specific and valid reasons” supported by the record to reject 

that determination. Id.

The Commissioner concedes the ALJ erred by not discussing Mr. Kittelson’s assessment, 

but argues that the record is ambiguous and that remand to the Agency is required. The 

Commissioner cites Dr. French who “determined Plaintiff could perform light/medium work.” 

Defendant’s Brief at 8. In August 2008, Dr. French wrote “[f]unctionally at this time due to the 

back musculoskeletal status, she would appear to be okay for work in the light/medium work 

range, no lifting over 25 pounds. . . . She may have some depression which could slow her 

psychomotor functioning.” Tr. 614. Dr. French did not offer an opinion as to Plaintiff’s ability 

to work an eight-hour day or 40 hour week. Mr. Kittelson had Dr. French’s report when he made

his assessment.

The Commissioner argues that Mr. Kittelson’s assessment that Plaintiff had “cognitive 

deficits impairing work quality and productivity,” conflicts with her 3.49 grade point average and

the fact that she impressed her supervisors at the Community Based Work Evaluation/Experience

with her office skills and learning ability. However, this is the same Work Evaluation that 

concluded Plaintiff could work only part time. Tr. 510, 513. On this record, the evidence is not 

ambiguous and remand for further proceedings is not required.

Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 5 of 10
C. Plaintiff’s Credibility and Lay Testimony

Plaintiff testified she was 50 years old and completed ninth grade. Tr. 41. Thereafter she 

completed her GED and was attending Portland State University. She had been at PSU for two 

years, and prior to that was at Chemeketa Community College for four or five years. She 

thought she would finish her degree in a year. Tr. 42. She does all of her course work online. 

She did not do well in school when she had to go to the campus because she has “a hard time 

going into classroom settings.” Tr. 43. She failed or withdrew from classes she took on campus. 

She was allowed extra time for tests and had access to a tutor. Tr. 56.

Plaintiff last worked in 2008 providing childcare for her grandchildren. Tr. 44. Through 

Vocational Rehabilitation, she worked for one month as an intern at the State Lands office. Tr. 

47. She retrieved files for one or two people. Tr. 48. She was able to do the job but could not 

work as many hours as she hoped. Tr. 49. She started working four hours a day, four days a 

week, but had to reduce her hours to three days a week for three to four hours because of 

“paralyzing pain from my low back into my legs.” Id. She does not know what causes the back 

pain, but she has had it for a long time.

Plaintiff testified she works a couple of hours on her school work, then takes a break to 

move around, and works a couple more hours. Tr. 50. Asked what makes her unable to work, 

Plaintiff testified, “Oh, I know I can’t work more than three hours a day. . .[b]ecause I just tried .

. .[w]hen I was doing the work experience.” Tr. 50-51. She has “to be able to get up and down.” 

She was able to get up and down when she did the file clerk job. Her legs swell if she sits too 

long. Tr. 52. 

Plaintiff had depression when she last worked, but now she doesn’t “feel comfortable 

around people. I don’t trust people. I don’t even go outside my house 90 percent of the time. 

Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 6 of 10
My kids have to practically drag me out.” Tr. 54. Plaintiff testified that her husband went to 

prison for raping her daughter, after which Plaintiff was in an abusive relationship. She started 

isolating herself, and the only people allowed in her house are her children and grandchildren. In

her house she isolates in her room. She has to force herself to go out to an appointment. Tr. 55. 

She does not want to have to deal with people. 

Plaintiff will walk alone to the 7 Eleven on the corner, where she does 90 percent of her 

shopping. Tr. 55. She quit attending church “a couple of years ago,” because “I feel like 

everybody’s just judging me, and making me feel bad.” Tr. 56. 

Plaintiff worked at Kettle Foods for about two and half years. She was working in the 

seasoning department when she developed allergies that caused her hands to crack “so badly that 

if I even opened my hand or shut my hand my hands would start bleeding.” Tr. 58. She saw a 

specialist at Oregon Health Sciences University, and now she avoids chemicals by doing dishes 

once a week and buys food that does not require her to use dishes. Plaintiff referred to a list of 

products she avoids. 

Plaintiff has tendonitis in her right hand, and can type for about 30 to 45 minutes before 

she stops. Tr. 61. She cannot carry her laundry, and cannot concentrate unless it is completely 

quiet. Tr. 61-62. Plaintiff worries about germs in her house. Tr. 63. She stays in her room 

“because that’s the only area that’s mine that I know that’s just mine – I mean that I don’t have 

anybody else touching things, and you know, wiping their noses, or sneezing, or -“ She uses 

bleach to clean and keeps a can of Lysol to spray the toilet seat whenever she uses it. Her 

furniture is covered in plastic. Plaintiff rides the bus to appointments, but does not like the 

people. “Not only do you get to deal with the body odor, you got to deal with people touching 

rails and poles, and all kinds of stuff. It’s just gross.” Tr. 65.

Page 7 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 7 of 10
On November 9, 2010, Plaintiff’s daughter, Jennifer Yoder, reported she saw her mother 

at least ten hours a week. Tr. 267. Ms. Yoder drove her mother to appointments, and said 

Plaintiff could “barely move sometimes, and she gets stressed out very easily. She has severe 

mood swings and a lot of depression. She needs help unlocking doors and opening cans of food 

due to a lack of range of motion.” Id. Ms. Yoder stated that anxiety, severe asthma, and acid 

reflux prevent her mother from sleeping. Tr. 268. Plaintiff microwaves frozen dinners, cleans, 

and does laundry. Ms. Yoder described her mother as compulsively clean. Tr. 269. She shops 

weekly for about 30 minutes, and plays computer games. Tr. 271. She is often “overly 

emotional” and takes things the wrong way or too personally. Id.

Ms. Yoder reported her mother cannot bend, squat, lift or kneel, and that she has trouble 

stair climbing, completing tasks, concentrating, using her hands, and getting along with others. 

Tr. 272. Plaintiff does not handle stress well, and has an unusual fear of germs. Tr. 273. 

On January 30, 2013, Ms. Yoder, wrote:

Many of the classes that she has taken, we have taken together.

I have been able to help her. She has needed help because she

has trouble with mathematical concepts. I help her phrase her

thoughts because she has difficulties putting them into words.

She works in spurts because she can only stay focused for brief

periods. She needs frequent breaks because she will say that 

she is hurting, or she will become distracted.

Tr. 536.

The ALJ found Plaintiff not fully credible. Tr. 19-20. The ALJ considered Ms.Yoder’s 

statements and gave them “little weight.” Tr. 24. The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ did 

not properly evaluate either witness, and argues that remand for further proceedings is 

appropriate. 

The ALJ failed to provide “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for rejecting 

Page 8 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 8 of 10
Plaintiff’s testimony. Vaasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009)(quoting Smolen v. 

Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996)). Her testimony is consistent with the evaluation 

conducted by Vocational Rehabilitation and the Community Based Work Evaluation/Experience.

The ALJ has a duty to consider lay witness testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d); 

404.1545(a)(3); 416.945(a)(3); 416.913(d); Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Friends and family members in a position to observe the claimant's symptoms and daily activities

are competent to testify regarding the claimant's condition. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918-

19 (9th Cir. 1993). The ALJ may not reject such testimony without comment and must give 

reasons germane to the witness for rejecting her testimony. Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 

1467 (9th Cir. 1996). Ms. Yoder’s reports are consistent with Plaintiff’s testimony and the 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Community Work evaluations.

 If these opinions and testimony are credited, the ALJ would be required to find Plaintiff 

disabled. The Vocational Expert testified that if a person were unproductive for any reason for 

ten percent or more of the time, that would preclude gainful activity. Tr. 79.

CONCLUSION

The Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The decision of 

the Commissioner is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant

to Sentence Four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the immediate calculation and payment of benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 17th day of June, 2015.

 /s/ Michael McShane 

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

Page 9 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 9 of 10
Page 10 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01111-MC Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 10 of 10