Nainia Pouria v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2011cv01891 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this decision, pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (sbu)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 NAINIA POURIA, 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of 19 Social Security Administration, 20 21 22 Defendant. ) ED CV 11-1891-SH ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. PROCEEDINGS This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the 23 Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff s application for Supplemental 24 Security Income ( SSI ). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented 25 the case may be handled by the undersigned. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 26 405(g), which authorizes the Court to enter judgment upon the pleadings and 27 transcript of the record before the Commissioner. Plaintiff and Defendant have filed 28 their pleadings (Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment for Remand or Reversal; 1 1 Defendant s Brief; Plaintiff s Reply to Defendant s Motion for Summary 2 Judgment), and Defendant has filed the certified transcript of record. After 3 reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner 4 should be reversed and remanded. II. DISCUSSION 5 6 On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI alleging disability 7 beginning January 1, 2003 due to severe bi-polar disorder and depression. (AR 18, 8 67) At the January 25, 2011 hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) 9 determined that Plaintiff was not disabled, as defined in the Social Security Act. 10 (AR 24) On November 1, 2011, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff s request for 11 review of the ALJ s decision. (AR 1-3) 12 Following the Appeals Council s denial of Plaintiff s request for a review of 13 the hearing decision, Plaintiff filed an action in this Court. Plaintiff makes two 14 challenges to the ALJ s decision denying benefits. Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ 15 erred (1) in determining that Plaintiff s limitation to simple one- to two-step tasks 16 (AR 235) allowed her to perform jobs in the national economy with a General 17 Education Development ( GED ) Reasoning Level Two based on the vocational 18 expert s ( VE ) testimony; and (2) in finding that the degree to which Plaintiff 19 reported for symptoms and difficulties of her impairment, was excessive. 20 For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the decision of the 21 Commissioner should be reversed and remanded. Because this decision is based on 22 the analysis of Plaintiff s first contention only, there is no need to address the second 23 contention. 24 ISSUE NO. 1: 25 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ improperly determined that she could perform 26 the jobs of hand packager and small parts assembler. Defendant argues that the ALJ 27 properly found that Plaintiff could perform such jobs. 28 In his Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment of Plaintiff, state 2 1 agency physician K. Loomis, M.D. stated that Plaintiff was capable of 2 understanding, remembering and carrying out simple one to two step tasks. (AR 3 235) At Plaintiff s hearing, the VE testified that an individual with Plaintiff s 4 limitations, age, education, and work experience could perform the job of hand 5 packager and small parts assembler. (AR 62) As stated by the VE, the Dictionary 6 of Occupational Titles ( DOT ) designates that both of these jobs require the ability 7 to function at Reasoning Level Two. (Id.) In its decision, the ALJ found that 8 because Plaintiff was able to perform the requirements of these jobs, she was 9 capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant 10 numbers in the national economy. (AR 24). Thus, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff 11 was not disabled. (Id.) 12 Plaintiff argues that the VE s testimony was not complete enough to 13 determine whether she is disabled or not because she is limited to jobs requiring the 14 ability to function at Reasoning Level One. The DOT defines GED Reasoning 15 Level One as being able to apply commonsense understanding to carry out simple 16 one- or two-step instructions. (Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Appendix C 1991 17 WL 688702) The DOT defines GED Reasoning Level Two as being able to apply 18 commonsense understanding to carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral 19 instructions. (Id.) 20 Plaintiff claims that based on Dr. Loomis assessment, she actually could not 21 perform the jobs that the VE testified that she could. Because no explanation was 22 provided by the VE or ALJ for the inconsistency between the testimony and the 23 DOT, Plaintiff argues that the VE s testimony is incomplete and the Commission 24 has not met its burden of establishing that Plaintiff could perform other jobs that 25 exist in substantial numbers in the national economy. 26 Plaintiff asserts that the weight of authority supports finding that a limitation 27 to one- or two-step instructions is a limitation to Reasoning Level One occupations. 28 Hamlett v. Astrue, 2012 WL 469722, *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2012) (holding that a 3 1 limitation of two steps of instruction corresponds to Reasoning Level One); Grigsby 2 v. Astrue, EDCV 08-1413 AJW, 2010 WL 309013, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2010) 3 (holding that a limitation to one- or two-step instructions corresponds to the 4 definition of DOT Reasoning Level One); Murphy v. Astrue, 2011 WL 124723, at 5 *7 (C.D. Ca. Jan. 13, 2011) (holding that when an ALJ fails to address a one- or 6 two-step instruction limitation, its analysis of the fifth step in the Social Security 7 Administration s evaluation process is not supported by substantial evidence and is 8 not free of legal error). 9 Defendant argues that there is no clear restriction to Reasoning Level One 10 occupations simply because the RFC uses the language one to two step tasks. 11 Defendant asserts that there is authority that does not support using parallels 12 between definitions from Social Security regulations and DOT descriptions to match 13 up terminology. Meisel v. Barnhart, 403 F. Supp. 2d 981, 983 (C.D. Cal. 2005); 14 Bordbar v. Astrue, 2011 WL 486540, *3 (C.D. Cal. 2011). 15 In Bordbar, the plaintiff received a limitation for one- or two-step instructions 16 in his RFC. Id. at *2. The court determined that the RFC did not restrict the 17 plaintiff to Reasoning Level One jobs only. Id. at *3. However, the plaintiff was 18 also found capable of performing detailed and complex instructions, indicative of 19 Reasoning Level 2, as well as having no limitations in performing activities of daily 20 living. Id. at *3. Thus, the ALJ in Bordbar had additional evidence supporting a 21 finding that the plaintiff could perform jobs at a higher reasoning level despite a 22 limitation to one- or two-step instructions. 23 This Court is persuaded by Plaintiff s arguments. Unlike Bordbar, neither the 24 VE nor the ALJ presented any persuasive evidence to support Plaintiff s ability to 25 perform Reasoning Level Two work or higher. Because a limitation to one- or two26 step tasks corresponds to Reasoning Level One, without any evidence presented 27 supporting a deviation, and without consideration of whether there are Reasoning 28 Level One jobs in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could 4 1 perform, the ALJ did not fully determine whether Plaintiff has been under a 2 disability. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding 3 that there may only be a deviation from DOT classifications where the record 4 contains persuasive evidence to support it); Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 5 1153 (9th Cir. 2007). ORDER 6 7 For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and 8 the matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this decision, 9 pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 10 DATED: June 1, 2012 11 12 13 ____________________________________ 14 STEPHEN J. HILLMAN 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 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.
