Adelena Escobar v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2010cv00771 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
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
<![CDATA[
Adelena Escobar v. Michael J Astrue Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 ADELENA ESCOBAR, 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. 14 15 16 17 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. No. EDCV 10-771 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. Plaintiff seeks 21 review of the Commissioner s denial of disability benefits. As 22 discussed below, the court finds that the Commissioner s decision 23 should be reversed and this matter remanded for further proceedings. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff Adelena Escobar was born on January 27, 1959, and was 26 50 years old at the time of her administrative hearing. 27 [Administrative Record ( AR ) 20, 87.] She has a twelfth grade 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 education and past relevant work experience as an in-home support 2 services caretaker and a retail stocker. [AR 16, 102.] 3 alleges disability on the basis of carpal tunnel syndrome, depression, 4 anxiety, schizoaffective disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, and 5 osteoporosis in the right knee [AR 40.] 6 7 II. Plaintiff PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT Plaintiff s complaint was lodged on May 24, 2010, and filed on 8 June 2, 2010. On November 26, 2010, Defendant filed an answer to the 9 complaint and plaintiff s Administrative Record ( AR ). On January 10 27, 2011, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation ( JS ) identifying 11 matters not in dispute, issues in dispute, the positions of the 12 parties, and the relief sought by each party. 13 taken under submission without oral argument. III. 14 This matter has been PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 15 On September 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed an application for 16 supplemental security income ( SSI ), alleging disability beginning 17 June 1, 2001. [AR 8, 87.] 18 and on reconsideration, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, 19 which was held on August 10, 2009, before an Administrative Law Judge 20 ( ALJ ). [AR 18.] 21 was taken. 22 October 20, 2009. [AR 17.] 23 April 23, 2010, the ALJ s decision became the Commissioner s final 24 decision. [AR 1.] 25 26 After the application was denied initially Plaintiff appeared with counsel, and her testimony [AR 20.] The ALJ denied benefits in a decision filed on IV. When the Appeals Council denied review on STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the 27 Commissioner s decision to deny benefits. 28 ALJ s) findings and decision should be upheld if they are free of 2 The Commissioner s (or 1 legal error and supported by substantial evidence. 2 court determines that a finding is based on legal error or is not 3 supported by substantial evidence in the record, the court may reject 4 the finding and set aside the decision to deny benefits. 5 v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001); Tonapetyan v. 6 Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2001); Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 7 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 8 1097 (9th Cir. 1999); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 9 1998); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); Moncada 10 11 However, if the See Aukland 2001); Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1995)(per curiam). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a 12 preponderance. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720. 13 which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a 14 conclusion. 15 a finding, a court must review the administrative record as a whole, 16 weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that 17 detracts from the Commissioner s conclusion. 18 can reasonably support either affirming or reversing, the reviewing 19 court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. 20 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 V. 21 Id. If the evidence DISCUSSION 22 A. THE FIVE-STEP EVALUATION 23 To be eligible for disability benefits a claimant must 24 demonstrate a medically determinable impairment which prevents the 25 claimant from engaging in substantial gainful activity and which is 26 expected to result in death or to last for a continuous period of at 27 least twelve months. 28 721; 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098; Reddick, 157 F.3d at 3 1 Disability claims are evaluated using a five-step test: 2 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. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995, as amended 12 April 9, 1996); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142, 107 13 S. Ct. 2287, 96 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987); Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99; 20 14 C.F.R. § 404.1520, § 416.920. If a claimant is found disabled or 15 not disabled at any step, there is no need to complete further 16 steps. Tackett, 180 F.3d 1098; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. 17 Claimants have the burden of proof at steps one through four, 18 subject to the presumption that Social Security hearings are non19 adversarial, and to the Commissioner s affirmative duty to assist 20 claimants in fully developing the record even if they are represented 21 by counsel. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 and n.3; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 22 1288. If this burden is met, a prima facie case of disability is 23 made, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner (at step five) to 24 prove that, considering residual functional capacity ( RFC )1, age, 25 26 1 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 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 her application date (step one), that Plaintiff 7 had severe impairments, namely obesity and degenerative joint 8 disease in the knees (step two), and that Plaintiff did not have an 9 impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a 10 listing (step three). [AR 10-11.] Plaintiff was assessed an RFC 11 enabling her to perform the full range of medium work. [AR 11.] 12 upon Plaintiff s RFC, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform her 13 past relevant work as an in-home support services caretaker and a 14 retail stocker as actually and generally performed in the national 15 economy (step four). [AR 16.] 16 disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. [Id.] Based Accordingly, Plaintiff was found not 17 C. 18 The parties Joint Stipulation identifies three disputed issues: 19 1. 2. 22 23 24 Whether the ALJ properly assessed the lay statement of Sandra Hansley, Plaintiff s Twelve-Step sponsor; 20 21 ISSUES IN DISPUTE Whether the ALJ properly assessed the lay statement of Breana Perez, Plaintiff s daughter; and 3. Whether the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff s ability to perform her past relevant work. 25 26 27 28 work without directly limiting strength, and include mental, sensory, postural, manipulative, and environmental limitations. Penny v. 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 [JS 2.] 2 As discussed below, Issue Three is dispositive. 3 D. 4 As noted, the ALJ held that Plaintiff has the residual functional DISCUSSION 5 capacity to perform a full range of medium work. [AR 11.] Medium 6 work involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent 7 lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds. 8 Security Ruling ( SSR ) 83-14. 9 standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours Social A full range of medium work requires 10 in an 8-hour workday. 11 Plaintiff is capable of performing her past relevant work as an in- 12 home support services caretaker and a retail stocker, based on how the 13 jobs are actually and generally performed in the national economy [AR 14 16.] 15 the ALJ failed to conduct a proper analysis with respect to this 16 issue. 17 SSR 83-10. Accordingly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff claims that the ALJ s finding was conclusory, and that In the Ninth Circuit, a step four finding must include specific 18 findings as to the claimant s residual functional capacity, the 19 physical and mental demands of the past relevant work, and the 20 relation of the residual functional capacity to the past work. 21 v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 22 claimant continues to bear the burden of proof at step four in the 23 sequential evaluation, the ALJ still has a duty to make requisite 24 factual findings to support his conclusion. 25 Pinto Although the Id. at 844. Here, there was no explanation for the ALJ s step four finding 26 that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as it was actually 27 or generally performed. 28 perform medium level work, none of the usual sources of evidence as to Although the ALJ found that Plaintiff could 6 1 the physical and mental demands of a claimant s past relevant work, 2 such as vocational expert testimony, the Dictionary of Occupational 3 Titles ( DOT ), or the claimant s own testimony, were referenced in 4 the decision; nor was there reference to any other evidence of the 5 functional demands of Plaintiff s past relevant work. 6 circumstances, the court has no basis on which to review the agency s 7 decision that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work. 8 Carmickle v. Commissioner, Social Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1167 9 (9th Cir. 2008)(reversing where ALJ relied on generic occupational Under these 10 classification at Step four without explanation because the ALJ 11 failed sufficiently to support his conclusion ); see also Pinto, 249 12 F.3d at 847 ( Requiring the ALJ to make specific findings on the 13 record at each phase of the step four analysis provides for meaningful 14 judicial review (citation omitted)). 15 remand for further administrative proceedings are appropriate. Accordingly, reversal and 16 E. REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 17 The decision whether to remand for further proceedings is within 18 the discretion of the district court. 19 1175-1178 (9th Cir. 2000). 20 further proceedings, or where the record has been fully developed, it 21 is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 22 award of benefits. 23 remand for further proceedings turns upon their likely utility). 24 However, where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved 25 before a determination can be made, and it is not clear from the 26 record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled if 27 all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 28 Here, as set out above, outstanding issues remain before a finding of Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, Where no useful purpose would be served by Harman, 211 F.3d at 1179 (decision whether to 7 Id. 1 disability can be made.2 2 Accordingly, remand is appropriate. VI. ORDERS 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED. 5 2. This action is REMANDED to defendant, pursuant to Sentence 6 Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings as discussed 7 above. 8 9 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve this Decision and Order and the Judgment herein on all parties or counsel. 10 11 12 13 DATED: April 8, 2011 _____________________________ CARLA M. WOEHRLE United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The remaining issues raised by Plaintiff in the Joint Stipulation would not direct a finding of disability on the basis of the current record. 8
]]>
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.
