Jackson v. Astrue, No. 5:2012cv00975 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. For the reasons set forth above, the ALJs decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Agency for further consideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. (see document for complete details) (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PATRICIA LOUISE JACKSON, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ED CV 12-975-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security 19 Administration ( the Agency ), denying her application for Disability 20 Insurance benefits ( DIB ). 21 Judge ( ALJ ) erred when he classified her past jobs. 22 discussed below, the Court agrees and remands the case for further 23 proceedings consistent with this decision. 24 II. She claims that the Administrative Law For the reasons SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 25 In October 2008, Plaintiff applied for DIB, claiming that she was 26 disabled due to a foot injury, chronic pain, migraines, fatigue, sleep 27 disturbance, weight gain, severe muscle cramps, and depression. 28 (Administrative Record ( AR ) 161-69, 176.) Her application was 1 denied initially and on reconsideration, after which she requested and 2 was granted a hearing before an ALJ. 3 In July 2010, following the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision, 4 finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. (AR 24-32.) Plaintiff 5 appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied review. (AR 5-8.) 6 appeal followed. 7 This III. DISCUSSION 8 9 (AR 70-73, 76-78, 81-82, 93-98.) Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in determining at step four that she could perform her past work because he relied on the 10 vocational expert s erroneous classification of that work. 11 For the following reasons, the Court agrees. 12 In Plaintiff s hearing testimony and a work history report 13 submitted with her application, she identified two previous jobs that 14 are at issue here. 15 coordinator at a group home for patients undergoing rehabilitation 16 following brain injuries. 17 to-day operations of the home, scheduled therapy sessions, and hired, 18 supervised, and trained the staff. 19 vocational expert characterized this job as program coordinator 20 under Dictionary of Occupational Titles ( DOT ) No. 249.169-010. 21 61.) 22 (AR 199-206.) The first involved work as the (AR 201, 205.) Plaintiff oversaw the day- (AR 44-45, 201, 205.) The (AR In Plaintiff s second job, she worked in a home office for a 23 computer engineering consultant where she handled his schedule and 24 mail, answered the telephone, processed accounts payable, and 25 conducted minor quality assurance testing on his software design. 26 (AR 59, 203.) 27 administrative assistant under DOT No. 169.167-010. The vocational expert characterized this job as 28 2 (AR 61-62.) 1 In his decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the 2 functional capacity to do sedentary work, provided that she could 3 readjust her position at will. 4 expert s characterization of her past jobs as program coordinator and 5 administrative assistant, both sedentary jobs, he determined that 6 Plaintiff was not disabled because she could still perform these jobs 7 despite her limitations. 8 9 (AR 28.) Relying on the vocational (AR 32.) With respect to the first job, program coordinator, purportedly found at DOT No. 249.169-010, the parties agree that there is no such 10 section in the DOT and no such job title under a different section. 11 (Joint Stip. at 9, 14.) 12 section in the DOT -No. 249.167-010 -relating to the job of 13 automobile-club-safety-program coordinator --does not describe 14 Plaintiff s past work as a program coordinator, either. 15 at 9-10, 14.) 16 vocational expert s testimony concerning this job to conclude that 17 Plaintiff could work.1 The parties also agree that the nearest (Joint Stip. As such, it was error for the ALJ to rely on the 18 As to the second job, identified by the vocational expert as 19 administrative assistant, DOT No. 169.167-010, it is described in the 20 DOT as follows: 21 Aids executive in staff capacity by coordinating office 22 services, such as personnel, budget preparation and control, 23 housekeeping, records control, and special management 24 studies: Studies management methods in order to improve 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff contends that the correct description of this job is Coordinator of Rehabilitation Services, DOT No. 076.117-010. (Joint Stip. at 7-8.) It appears that Plaintiff is right, but a vocational expert should verify this on remand. 3 1 workflow, simplify reporting procedures, or implement cost 2 reductions. 3 recordkeeping systems, forms control, office layout, 4 suggestion systems, personnel and budgetary requirements, 5 and performance standards to create new systems or revise 6 established procedures. 7 responsibilities for use in wage and salary adjustments, 8 promotions, and evaluation of workflow. 9 improving work measurements or performance standards. Analyzes unit operating practices, such as Analyzes jobs to delimit position Studies methods of 10 Coordinates collection and preparation of operating reports, 11 such as time-and-attendance records, terminations, new 12 hires, transfers, budget expenditures, and statistical 13 records of performance data. 14 conclusions and recommendations for solution of 15 administrative problems. 16 policies. 17 in preparation of budget needs and annual reports of 18 organization. 19 orientation of new employees, and plan training programs. 20 May direct services, such as maintenance, repair, supplies, 21 mail, and files. 22 management data, using computer. 23 24 Prepares reports including Issues and interprets operating Reviews and answers correspondence. May assist May interview job applicants, conduct May compile, store, and retrieve (DOT No. 169.167-010.) Plaintiff contends that this description does not accurately 25 reflect her duties on that job. Rather, she believes that her duties 26 are more closely aligned with the position of office helper: 27 Performs any combination of following duties in business 28 office of commercial or industrial establishment: Furnishes 4 1 workers with clerical supplies. 2 distributes incoming mail, and collects, seals, and stamps 3 outgoing mail. 4 and distributes paperwork, such as records or timecards, 5 from one department to another. 6 articles and records. 7 envelope-sealing machine, letter opener, record shaver, 8 stamping machine, and transcribing machine. 9 Opens, sorts, and Delivers oral or written messages. Collects Marks, tabulates, and files May use office equipment, such as (DOT No. 239.567-010.) 10 She points out that the office helper job is light work as 11 generally performed and as she actually performed it and, therefore, 12 she is not capable of performing that job since she is limited to 13 sedentary work. 14 (Joint Stip. at 12-13.) The Agency disagrees. It argues that the office helper job, 15 which is unskilled work, does not accurately depict Plaintiff s past 16 job because she was required to perform skilled duties, including 17 scheduling, working with accounts payable, and performing software 18 quality assurance testing. (Joint Stip. at 15.) 19 While it may be true that Plaintiff s job involved some tasks 20 which required more skill than that of an office helper, it is not 21 clear to what extent she performed these other tasks, like software 22 quality assurance testing. 23 administrative assistant job is significantly broader and more complex 24 than Plaintiff s past job because it involves analyzing, studying, 25 coordinating, and interpreting -tasks that Plaintiff apparently did 26 not perform. 27 28 On this bare record, it appears that the For these reasons, the Court concludes that remand is required to further develop the record. The ALJ should call a vocational expert 5 1 to identify Plaintiff s position at the group home and then determine 2 if she is still capable of performing that job. 3 testimony should be elicited from Plaintiff to determine precisely 4 what she did at the second job as an administrator/office assistant 5 for the computer engineer.2 6 7 8 9 10 IV. In addition, further CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the ALJ s decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Agency for further consideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 2, 2013. 11 12 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\JACKSON, P 975\Memo Opinion and Order.wpd 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff claims that the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the Grids ), specifically Grid Rules 201.12 and 201.14, direct a conclusion that she is disabled. (Joint Stip. at 13.) This argument, however, ignores the fact that the Grids do not direct a disability finding if she has transferable skills or education providing for direct entry into skilled work, see Grid Rules 201.13, 201.15; 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2 ยง 201.00(g), which it appears she does. (AR 43-46.) It further ignores the fact that there is a question as to how her jobs are classified and whether she is still capable of performing them. 6
]]>
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.
