Susan Hacker v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 5:2012cv01706 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. For the reasons set forth above, the Agency's decision is affirmed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SUSAN HACKER, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ED CV 12-1706-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 20 Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ). 21 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred when he discounted the opinion 22 of a social worker and when he relied on a vocational expert's 23 testimony that she could perform the jobs of cleaner, packager, and 24 assembler. 25 the ALJ did not err. 26 27 28 She claims that the For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS In June 2007, Plaintiff applied for SSI, claiming that she was disabled due to mental illness and depression. (Administrative Record 1 ( AR ) 79-85, 100.) 2 reconsideration, after which she requested and was granted a hearing 3 before an ALJ. 4 March 2009, the ALJ issued a decision, finding that Plaintiff was not 5 disabled. 6 which denied review. 7 June 22, 2011, the Court remanded the case to the Agency to consider a 8 treating physician s evaluation and an opinion by a consulting 9 psychiatrist. 10 Her application was denied initially and on (AR 36-48, 52-54, 59-63.) (AR 6-15.) Following the hearing in Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, (AR 1-5.) She then appealed to this court. On (AR 300-10.) Following remand, a different ALJ conducted a hearing on June 15, 11 2012, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. 12 263-99.) A social worker also testified on Plaintiff s behalf. 13 282-88.) On July 9, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. 14 (AR 242-56.) 15 (AR (AR Plaintiff then commenced this action. III. DISCUSSION 16 A. 17 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred when he rejected the social 18 worker s opinion that Plaintiff would not be able to hold down a full- 19 time job. 20 did not err. 21 The ALJ s Rejection of the Social Worker s Testimony For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the ALJ At the June 2012 hearing, a social worker testified that 22 Plaintiff was in denial about her symptoms and opined that her 23 inability to make judgements, follow through, or stay on task would 24 prevent her from holding down a full-time job. 25 rejected the social worker s opinion because it was contradicted by 26 the testimony of the medical expert, Dr. David Glassmire. 27 53.) 28 from the social worker, and testified that Plaintiff was capable of (AR 284-85.) The ALJ (AR 252- Dr. Glassmire reviewed the medical evidence, including a letter 2 1 routine work that was not complex, fast-paced, or involved teamwork 2 and that did not require her to be hypervigilant, to interact with the 3 public, or to be responsible for the safety of others. 4 (AR 269, 271.) Social workers are not acceptable medical sources. Turner v. 5 Comm r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 6 C.F.R. ยง 404.1513(a), (d)(3).) 7 social worker s opinion for reasons that are germane to the witness. 8 Id. at 1224 (citing Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 9 2001)). As a result, an ALJ may disregard a The ALJ s rejection of the social worker s testimony on the 10 ground that it was inconsistent with the doctor s testimony was 11 germane to the social worker, see, e.g., Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 12 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding [i]nconsistency with medical 13 evidence is germane reason to discredit lay witness testimony); 14 Lewis, 236 F.3d at 511 (stating [o]ne reason for which an ALJ may 15 discount lay testimony is that it conflicts with the medical 16 evidence ), and was supported by substantial evidence in the record, 17 i.e., Dr. Glassmire s testimony. 18 not be disturbed. As such, the ALJ s finding here will 19 B. The Vocational Expert s Testimony 20 The vocational expert testified that, despite Plaintiff s 21 limitations, she could work as a cleaner (DOT No. 381.687-018), a 22 packager (DOT No. 920.587-018), and an assembler (DOT No. 709.684- 23 014). 24 with the DOT. (AR 298.) Plaintiff s counsel did not challenge that 25 testimony at the administrative hearing. (AR 298.) 26 complains here, however, that the vocational expert erred when he 27 determined that she could perform these jobs because they require her 28 to be hypervigilant, interact with the public, perform fast-paced (AR 297.) He also made clear that his opinion did not conflict 3 Plaintiff 1 work, and be responsible for the safety of others. 2 16-21.) (Joint Stip. at For the following reasons, the Court disagrees. 3 Plaintiff contends that the cleaner job would require her to 4 interact with the public because the DOT description specifies that a 5 cleaner must clean working areas, transport products and supplies 6 between departments or buildings, and maintain plant grounds. 7 (Joint Stip. at 16-18.) 8 Though the job of cleaner requires a worker to clean, among other 9 things, areas that are occupied by workers, nothing in the DOT The Court does not see a conflict here. 10 suggests that these areas have to be cleaned while the workers are 11 there. 12 gone home for the night, which prevents the cleaning crew from 13 disrupting the workers while they are working. 14 Presumably, such cleaning is performed after the workers have As to Plaintiff s claim that she might be required to travel from 15 one office, department, or building to another and, therefore, 16 necessarily interact with the public, again, the Court does not see 17 this as a conflict with the DOT. 18 pass other people in a building or on the street going from one job 19 site to another does not mean she would be interacting with the 20 public. 21 The fact that Plaintiff may have to Plaintiff contends that the cleaner job requires hypervigilance 22 because she would have to clean machines, overhead pipes, and 23 conveyors, and might have to operate a truck. 24 not agree. 25 require hypervigilance. 26 at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013) (rejecting claimant s argument that 27 working with dangerous machines would require her to maintain a 28 state of hypervigilance). Again, the Court does Working with machines, even dangerous machines, does not See, e.g., Lair v. Colvin, 2013 WL 1247708, 4 1 For these same reasons, Plaintiff s argument that she could not 2 perform the work of a packager is also rejected. 3 19.) 4 belt does not mean that it requires hypervigilance. 5 1247708, at *4. 6 fast-paced and might affect the safety of others, the vocational 7 expert testified, unchallenged, that the packager job was bench work 8 in nature and not team or a line work. 9 (Joint Stip. at 18- The fact that this job might require the operation of a conveyor Lair, 2013 WL As to Plaintiff s argument that the job would be (AR 297.) Finally, Plaintiff argues that the job of an assembler would 10 require fast-paced work. 11 vocational expert testified that this job did not involve line work 12 but, rather, individual bench work. 13 shown that this testimony was inconsistent with the DOT. 14 these reasons, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in relying 15 on the vocational expert s testimony. 16 17 18 (Joint Stip. at 19-20.) IV. (AR 297.) Once again, the And Plaintiff has not For all of CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Agency s decision is affirmed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: October 30, 2013. 21 22 23 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\HACKER, 1706\Memo Opinion and Order.wpd 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.
