Geneva Triplett v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2009cv04938 - Document 20 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED. 2. This action is REMANDED to defendant, pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings as discussed above. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)

Download PDF

Geneva Triplett v. Michael J. Astrue Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 GENEVA TRIPLETT, 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 16 Defendant. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 09-4938 CW DECISION AND ORDER 18 19 The parties have consented, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the 20 jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 21 review of the Commissioner s denial of disability benefits. 22 discussed below, the court finds that the Commissioner s decision 23 should be reversed and this matter remanded for further proceedings. 24 25 I. Plaintiff seeks As BACKGROUND Plaintiff Geneva Triplett was born on January 24, 1949 and was 26 fifty-nine years old at the time of her administrative hearing. 27 [Administrative Record ( AR ) 35.] She has a high school education and 28 past relevant work experience as a receptionist, apartment manager, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and data entry worker. [Joint Stipulation, JS, 2.] Plaintiff alleges 2 disability on the basis of cervical disease in the neck, carpal tunnel 3 of both hands, hypertension, depression, pain in the neck and 4 shoulder, and degenerative disc disease. [AR 131.] 5 6 II. PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT Plaintiff s complaint was filed on July 9, 2009. On December 21, 7 2009, defendant filed plaintiff s Administrative Record ( AR ). 8 March 15, 2010, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation ( JS ) 9 identifying matters not in dispute, issues in dispute, the positions 10 of the parties, and the relief sought by each party. 11 On been taken under submission without oral argument. 12 III. This matter has PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 13 Plaintiff Triplett applied for a period of disability and 14 disability insurance benefits ( DIB ) on February 5, 2007, alleging 15 disability since September 23, 2004. 16 was denied initially and on reconsideration, an administrative hearing 17 was held on August 7, 2008, before an Administrative Law Judge 18 ( ALJ ). 19 testimony was taken from plaintiff, two medical experts ( ME ), and a 20 vocational expert ( VE ). 21 8, 2009. 22 on May 14, 2009, the ALJ s decision became the Commissioner s final 23 decision. 24 25 [Transcript, AR 31.] After the application Plaintiff appeared with counsel, and [Id.] [Decision, AR 19.] [JS 2.] The ALJ denied benefits on January When the Appeals Council denied review [AR 1.] IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the 26 Commissioner s decision to deny benefits. 27 ALJ s) findings and decision should be upheld if they are free of 28 legal error and supported by substantial evidence. 2 The Commissioner s (or However, if the 1 court determines that a finding is based on legal error or is not 2 supported by substantial evidence in the record, the court may reject 3 the finding and set aside the decision to deny benefits. 4 v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001); Tonapetyan v. 5 Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2001); Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 6 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 7 1097 (9th Cir. 1999); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 8 1998); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); Moncada 9 v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995)(per curiam). 10 See Aukland 2001); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a 11 preponderance. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720. 12 which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a 13 conclusion. 14 a finding, a court must review the administrative record as a whole, 15 weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that 16 detracts from the Commissioner s conclusion. 17 can reasonably support either affirming or reversing, the reviewing 18 court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. 19 Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720-721; see also Osenbrock, 240 F.3d at 1162. Id. It is relevant evidence To determine whether substantial evidence supports 20 V. Id. If the evidence DISCUSSION 21 A. THE FIVE-STEP EVALUATION 22 To be eligible for disability benefits a claimant must 23 demonstrate a medically determinable impairment which prevents the 24 claimant from engaging in substantial gainful activity and which is 25 expected to result in death or to last for a continuous period of at 26 least twelve months. 27 721; 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 28 Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098; Reddick, 157 F.3d at Disability claims are evaluated using a five-step test: 3 Step one: Is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. Step two: Does the claimant have a severe impairment? If so, proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not disabled is appropriate. Step three: Does the claimant s impairment or combination of impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1? If so, the claimant is automatically determined disabled. If not, proceed to step four. Step four: Is the claimant capable of performing his past work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five. Step five: Does the claimant have the residual functional capacity to perform any other work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995, as amended 11 April 9, 1996); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142, 107 12 S. Ct. 2287, 96 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987); Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99; 20 13 C.F.R. § 404.1520, § 416.920. If a claimant is found disabled or 14 not disabled at any step, there is no need to complete further 15 steps. Tackett, 180 F.3d 1098; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. 16 Claimants have the burden of proof at steps one through four, 17 subject to the presumption that Social Security hearings are non18 adversarial, and to the Commissioner s affirmative duty to assist 19 claimants in fully developing the record even if they are represented 20 by counsel. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 and n.3; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 21 If this burden is met, a prima facie case of disability is 1288. 22 made, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner (at step five) to 23 prove that, considering residual functional capacity ( RFC )1, age, 24 25 1 26 27 28 Residual functional capacity measures what a claimant can still do despite existing exertional (strength-related) and nonexertional limitations. Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1155 n.s. 5-6 (9th Cir. 1989). Nonexertional limitations limit ability to work without directly limiting strength, and include mental, sensory, postural, manipulative, and environmental limitations. Penny v. 4 1 education, and work experience, a claimant can perform other work 2 which is available in significant numbers. 3 1100; Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, § 416.920. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098, 4 B. THE ALJ S EVALUATION IN PLAINTIFF S CASE 5 Here, the ALJ found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial 6 gainful activity since September 23, 2004 (step one); that plaintiff 7 had severe impairments, namely hypertension, obesity, cervical 8 strain, dysthymic disorder, and pain disorder (step two); and that 9 plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments 10 that met or equaled a listing (step three). 11 was found to have an RFC enabling her to perform work at less than the 12 full range of light work, including lifting and carrying twenty pounds 13 occasionally, and ten pounds frequently. [AR 26.] Additionally, 14 plaintiff was limited to occasional postural manipulations, occasional 15 overhead reaching, and occasional twisting and manipulating of the 16 wrists. 17 activities of daily living and in maintaining social functioning, with 18 moderate limitations in maintaining concentration, persistence, and 19 pace. Id. The vocational expert testified that a person with 20 Plaintiff s functional capacity could perform Plaintiff s past 21 relevant work as a receptionist, apartment manager, and data entry 22 worker (step four). [AR 29.] Relying on the vocational expert s 23 testimony that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work, the 24 ALJ s analysis did not proceed to the fifth step of the sequential 25 evaluation. Id. [AR 24-25.] Plaintiff Plaintiff was found to have mild limitations in Id. The ALJ found that the claimant was not disabled 26 27 28 Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 1993); Cooper, 800 F.2d at 1155 n.7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c). Pain may be either an exertional or a nonexertional limitation. Penny, 2 F.3d at 959; Perminter v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 1985); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c). 5 1 as defined by the Social Security Act. [AR 30.] 2 C. 3 ISSUES IN DISPUTE The parties joint stipulation identifies two disputed 4 issues: 5 1. 6 Whether the ALJ s residual functional capacity assessment is supported by substantial evidence? 7 2. Whether the ALJ s finding that Geneva Triplett can perform 8 her past relevant work is supported by substantial evidence? 9 [JS 2.] 10 11 Because Issue Two dispositive, the court need not address Issue One as presented in the joint stipulation. 12 D. 13 Background 14 Plaintiff was last employed as a receptionist for Pitney Bowes; PLAINTIFF S PAST RELEVANT WORK 15 she stopped working in September, 2004 after sustaining a a continuous 16 use injury to her neck, shoulders, arms, and hands. 17 414.] Prior to her employment at Pitney Bowes, plaintiff worked as a 18 temporary receptionist, data entry worker, and apartment manager. [AR 19 37.] On November 3, 2004 plaintiff was diagnosed with cervical 20 protrusion at C2-3, C5-6, and C6-7; cervical disc disease at 3 levels; 21 bilateral shoulder sprain; and obesity. [AR 409.] On September 20, 22 2007, Plaintiff was given a physical RFC assessment by medical 23 consultant P.E. Boetcher. [AR 374-378.] Plaintiff was found to be 24 exertionally limited to occasionally lifting twenty pounds, frequently 25 lifting ten pounds, standing and/or walking for six hours and sitting 26 for six hours in an eight-hour work day. [AR 375.] Plaintiff was also 27 found to be limited in her ability to reach in all directions. [AR 28 376.] 6 [AR 36-37, 413- 1 Plaintiff sought mental health treatment beginning in 2007. [AR 2 303-14.] She reported experiencing lethargy, tearfulness, GI 3 problems, irritability, apathy, restlessness, difficulty with sleep 4 and with concentration. [AR 303.] Her initial mental health diagnosis 5 was of major depression, Axis I. [AR 305, 308.] She was prescribed 6 medication, individual therapy, and group therapy. [AR 306.] On 7 October 24, 2007, medical consultant Dr. Yvonne C. McDowell completed 8 a mental RFC assessment of Plaintiff. [AR 392.] In pertinent part, Dr. 9 McDowell found that Plaintiff retained the capacity to understand, 10 remember and follow simple instructions and carry out simple work- 11 related tasks; sustain adequate concentration, persistence and pace; 12 relate and maintain appropriate workplace social interaction; and 13 adapt to normal workplace changes in routine. Id. 14 Administrative Hearing 15 At the administrative hearing, after hearing testimony from two 16 medical experts, the vocational expert ( VE ) testified. [AR 59.] The 17 VE testified that a person with Plaintiff s limitations could perform 18 all of her past relevant work. [AR 61.] 19 that none of these jobs have any postural requirements and that none 20 of the jobs involved abduction and adduction of the wrist. [AR 61.] 21 However, the ALJ did not question the VE as to whether her testimony 22 was consistent with the DOT with respect to all of Plaintiff s 23 limitations, particularly the limitation to occasional overhead 24 reaching. Id. Specifically, the VE noted 2 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff s attorney did ask the VE, Where did you come up with the information with respect to the no abduction or adduction of the wrists? I know that s not in the DOT. [AR 61.] The VE replied: This would be my personal experience with these jobs. Id. The VE testified that she had completed job analyses for these jobs, and 7 1 Discussion 2 Social Security Ruling 00-4p provides that when a vocational 3 expert . . . provides evidence about the requirements of a job or 4 occupation, the adjudicator has an affirmative responsibility to ask 5 about any possible conflict between that . . . evidence and 6 information provided in the DOT. 7 9. 8 Ninth Circuit held that an ALJ may not rely on a VE s testimony 9 without first inquiring about potential conflicts with the DOT. SSR 00-4p, 2000 SSR LEXIS 8, at *8- In Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2007), the Id. 10 at 1152. 11 testimony without making an inquiry as to whether there was a conflict 12 between her testimony and the DOT. 13 could not determine whether the ALJ properly relied on (the VE s) 14 testimony, and thus could not determine whether substantial evidence 15 supports the ALJ s step-five finding. 16 v. Barnhart, 486 F.3d 731, 736 (7th Cir. 2006)(holding that an ALJ s 17 failure to make the relevant inquiries under SSR 00-4p leaves 18 unresolved potential inconsistenc[ies] in the evidence ). 19 Under this authority, the ALJ improperly relied on the VE s Without this query, the court Id. at 1154 (citing Prouchaska Based on the record, there was an apparent conflict between the 20 VE s testimony and the DOT as to each of plaintiff s past relevant 21 positions, none of which were explained by the record. 22 186.167-018 (apartment resident manager); 203.582-054 (data entry 23 worker); 237.367-038 (receptionist). 24 frequent reaching and handling, defined as existing 1/3 to 2/3 of the 25 time. 26 finding that Plaintiff is limited to occasional overhead reaching, Id. Each listing in the DOT requires However, this is in apparent conflict with the ALJ s 27 28 See DOT performed them herself. [AR 61-62.] 8 1 with no explanation for the conflict. Id. 2 is unclear as to whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ s step 3 four finding that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work. 4 Massachi, 486 F.3d at 1154. 5 required for additional inquiry under SSR 00-4p. Accordingly, the record See Further proceedings are therefore 6 E. REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 7 The decision whether to remand for further proceedings is within 8 the discretion of the district court. 9 1175-1178 (9th Cir. 2000). Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, Where no useful purpose would be served by 10 further proceedings, or where the record has been fully developed, it 11 is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 12 award of benefits. 13 remand for further proceedings turns upon their likely utility). 14 However, where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved 15 before a determination can be made, and it is not clear from the 16 record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled if 17 all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 18 Here, as set out above in Issue Two,3 outstanding issues remain before 19 a finding of disability can be made. 20 appropriate. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // Harman, 211 F.3d at 1179 (decision whether to Accordingly, remand is 27 3 28 Issue One, assuming it was meritorious, would not direct a finding of disability on the basis of the existing record. 9 Id. 1 VI. ORDERS 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED. 4 2. This action is REMANDED to defendant, pursuant to Sentence 5 Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings as discussed 6 above. 7 8 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve this Decision and Order and the Judgment herein on all parties or counsel. 9 10 11 12 Dated: July 27, 2010 ______________________________ CARLA M. WOEHRLE United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.