Charles Robert Reeves v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 2:2013cv05375 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. *See attached Order.* (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Charles Robert Reeves v. Carolyn W Colvin Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHARLES ROBERT REEVES, Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 13-5375 FFM MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 16 Plaintiff brings this action seeking to overturn the decision of the Commissioner 17 of the Social Security Administration denying his application for a period of disability 18 and disability insurance benefits. The parties consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), 19 to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to the 20 July 29, 2013 Case Management Order, on April 15, 2014, the parties filed a Joint 21 Stipulation detailing each party’s arguments and authorities. The Court has reviewed the 22 Joint Stipulation and the administrative record, filed by defendant on February 7, 2014. 23 For the reasons stated below, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the 24 matter is remanded for further proceedings. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Dockets.Justia.com PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 2 On May 12, 2010, plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability and 3 disability insurance benefits. The applications were denied. Plaintiff filed a request for 4 a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). ALJ Judson Scott held a hearing 5 on September 20, 2011. Plaintiff appeared with a representative and testified at the 6 hearing. On October 28, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. Plaintiff 7 sought review of the decision before the Social Security Administration Appeals 8 Council. The Council denied the request for review on May 28, 2013. Plaintiff filed the complaint herein on July 25, 2013. 9 10 ISSUES 11 Plaintiff raises three issues: 12 13 1. Whether the ALJ properly found the work of a maintenance superintendent as past relevant work; 14 15 2. Whether the ALJ properly found the presence of transferable work skills; and 16 3. Whether the ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s testimony. 17 18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to 20 determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence 21 and whether the proper legal standards were applied. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 22 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” but 23 less than a preponderance. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 24 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971); Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 25 575-76 (9th Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable 26 mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. 27 This Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as supporting 28 evidence. Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 929-30 (9th Cir. 1986). Where evidence is 2 1 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner’s decision must 2 be upheld. Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1984). 3 DISCUSSION 4 A. 5 Issues One and Two. (i) Whether Maintenance Superintendent Qualifies as PRW. 6 Issues One and Two both relate to whether plaintiff should be considered to have 7 8 acquired the skills associated with working as a maintenance superintendent. The ALJ 9 relied on plaintiff having acquired such skills in finding both that plaintiff could perform 10 his past relevant work (“PRW”) and that plaintiff had transferable skills that were 11 necessary to perform other work identified by the Vocational Expert (“VE”). At step four of the sequential evaluation process, a claimant must establish that his 12 13 severe impairment or impairments prevent him from performing his PRW. Pinto v. 14 Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2001). Although the burden of proof lies with 15 the claimant (20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e)), the ALJ has a duty to make the requisite factual 16 findings to support his conclusion (Pinto, 249 F.3d at 844-45). The Social Security regulations define PRW as work the claimant has done within 17 18 the past 15 years, that qualifies as substantial gainful employment, and that lasted long 19 enough for the claimant to learn to do it. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b)(1), 416.960(b)(1) 20 (emphasis added). Here, the question is whether plaintiff had obtained sufficient 21 experience as a maintenance superintendent to have acquired the skills associated with 22 that position. Specific vocational preparation time, usually abbreviated to “SVP,” refers 23 to the amount of lapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the techniques, 24 require the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in 25 a specific job. DOT, Appendix C - Components of the Definition Trailer, 1991 WL 26 688702 (G.P.O.) (1991). Social Security Ruling 00-4p explains the concept as follows: 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 A skill is knowledge of a work activity that requires the exercise of 2 significant judgment that goes beyond the carrying out of simple job duties 3 and is acquired through performance of an occupation that is above the 4 unskilled level (requires more than 30 days to learn). (See SSR 82-41.) 5 Skills are acquired in PRW and may also be learned in recent education that 6 provides for direct entry into skilled work. 7 8 The DOT lists a specific vocational preparation (SVP) time for each 9 described occupation. Using the skill level definitions in 20 CFR 404.1568 10 and 416.968 . . . skilled work corresponds to an SVP of 5-9 in the DOT. 11 12 Although there may be a reason for classifying an occupation’s skill level 13 differently than in the DOT, the regulatory definitions of skill levels are 14 controlling. For example, VE or VS evidence may not be relied upon to 15 establish that unskilled work involves complex duties that take many 16 months to learn, because that is inconsistent with the regulatory definition 17 of unskilled work. See 20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968. 18 19 The job of maintenance superintendent has an SVP of 8. By definition, the 20 experience level of SVP 8 is “[o]ver 4 years up to and including 10 years.” DOT, 21 Appendix C - Components of the Definition Trailer. Because plaintiff only held the job 22 for 13 months it is not clear that plaintiff held the job long enough for it to qualify as 23 PRW. The Commissioner argues that the time required to learn a job is specified as the 24 time required for a typical worker to learn the job and that plaintiff might not be typical. 25 This argument fails because the record contains no evidence that plaintiff had any 26 special skills or ability that made the over 4 years up to and including 10 years definition 27 inapplicable to him. Therefore, the record does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that 28 maintenance superintendent qualifies as PRW. 4 (ii) Whether Transferability of Skills Is Supported by the Record. 1 2 Because the maintenance superintendent does not qualify as PRW, it was 3 erroneous for the VE to consider those skills in opining that plaintiff had the skills to 4 perform the identified occupations. On remand the ALJ should explore plaintiff’s skill 5 set and make findings on the skills plaintiff possesses and the skills necessary to perform 6 other jobs identified by the VE. 7 B. 8 Because remand is required with respect to Issues One and Two, the Court need 9 Issue Three. not address Issue Three at this time. 10 ORDER 11 12 13 14 For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 18 DATED: December 2, 2014 /S/ FREDERICK F. MUMM FREDERICK F. MUMM United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
