Daniel I Ahumada v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv05365 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this decision. (See Order for details) (bem)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL AHUMADA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 12-5365 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Daniel Ahumada ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 19 20 ( Defendant ) decision denying his application for disability benefits. Specifically, 21 Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred at step five in 22 finding, based upon the Vocational Expert s ( VE ) testimony, that Plaintiff can 23 perform the positions of plastic hospital products assembler, hand packager, and 24 dishwasher. (Joint Stip. at 3-16, 25); see Dictionary of Occupational Titles ( DOT ) 25 712.687-010, 920.587-018, 318-687-010. Because these positions all require a 26 reasoning level of 2 under the DOT, Plaintiff argues that they conflict with his 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 limitation to non-detailed tasks requiring 1 to 2 part instructions. 2/ (Joint Stip. at 2 3-16, 25; see Administrative Record ( AR ) at 17.) As discussed below, the Court 3 finds in favor of Plaintiff, albeit on different grounds. 4 The Ninth Circuit has yet to address the question of whether an occupation 5 with a reasoning level of 2 can involve non-detailed tasks requiring one- to two-part 6 instructions. At the same time, district courts within our circuit are divided on the 7 issue. See Gonzales v. Astrue, 2012 WL 2064947, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2012) 8 (reviewing opinions). 9 For present purposes, however, the Court need not join this debate. Instead, 10 error is found here for two other reasons. 11 First, the Court recalls the applicable burden of proof at step five. There, the 12 Commissioner bears the burden to identify jobs that a claimant can perform despite 13 his identified limitations. Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). 14 Without consensus as to whether a reasoning level of 2 is inconsistent with detailed 15 tasks or one- to two-part instructions, it is unclear whether the positions identified by 16 the ALJ are actually viable. In light of this ambiguity, the Court cannot conclude 17 that Defendant met its step five burden.3/ Second, the ALJ has an affirmative responsibility to ask about any possible 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2/ Regarding his limitation to non-detailed tasks, Plaintiff asserts that a reasoning level of 2, by definition, requires an employee to carry out detailed . . . instructions. DOT, Appendix C, 1991 WL 688702 (emphasis added). Similarly, with respect to his limitation to 1 to 2 part instructions, only a reasoning level of 1 calls for simple one- or two-step instructions. Id. Presumably, a position with a reasoning level of 2 is more demanding, and thus exceeds Plaintiff s Residual Functional Capacity ( RFC ). 3/ Tellingly, some courts facing similarly unclear conflicts between a claimant s 26 RFC and the DOT have ruled in favor of the Commissioner, at least in part, because the alleged error occurred at step four (i.e., when Plaintiff bore the burden of proof). 27 See, e.g., Leon v. Astrue, 830 F. Supp. 2d 844, 850 (C.D. Cal. 2011), Megliorino v. 28 Astrue, 2012 WL 2847705, at *10 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2012). 2 1 conflict between a VE s testimony and the DOT. Social Security Ruling ( SSR ) 2 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *4 (emphasis added). As explained above, such a 3 conflict arguably exists here. Despite this possibility, however, the ALJ failed to 4 obtain a reasonable explanation for such a conflict, and thus error must be found 5 under SSR 00-4p. See McGensy v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1875810, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 6 11, 2010). 7 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court determines that the ALJ 8 erred at step five. 9 10 C. Remand is Warranted With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 11 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 12 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 13 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 14 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 15 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 16 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 17 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 18 See id. at 594. 19 Here, in light of the error described above, the ALJ shall reevaluate the 20 testimony of the VE, and obtain a reasonable explanation for any conflict between 21 that testimony and the DOT, specifically with respect to any positions identified at 22 step five by the VE. 23 \ \ \ 24 \ \ \ 25 \ \ \ 26 \ \ \ 27 \ \ \ 28 3 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 2 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 3 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 4 decision. 5 6 Dated: April 30, 2013 7 ____________________________________ 8 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.