Margarita R Solano v. Michael J Astrue, No. 8:2012cv01047 - Document 24 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARGARITA R. SOLANO, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. SA CV 12-01047 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 After modifying the residual functional capacity stated by the Administrative 18 Law Judge, the Social Security Appeals Council adopted the findings of the 19 Administrative Law Judge, and determined that Plaintiff Margarita R. Solano was not 20 disabled. [AR 4-6] Plaintiff challenges the determination on two grounds, neither of 21 which the Court finds persuasive. 22 First, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff cannot perform the alternative jobs which 23 the Administrative Law Judge said she could perform, because they require a reasoning 24 level incompatible with her residual functional capacity. The Appeals Council limited 25 Plaintiff to simple routine tasks. [AR 5] Plaintiff says that one of the alternative jobs, that 26 of photocopying-machine operator, requires a reasoning level of 2, and the other requires 27 a reasoning level of 4. Plaintiff then says that Dr. Morgan, who conducted a records 28 review for the Social Security Administration, determined that Plaintiff had marked 1 limitations in understanding, remembering and carrying out detailed instructions and that 2 a person with such limitations could not perform a job with a reasoning level of 2 or 4. 3 Plaintiff misinterprets the evidence. 4 Dr. Morgan evidently did not feel that Plaintiff s marked limitations 5 prevented her from performing simple tasks, because he concluded, as the Appeals 6 Council noted, that Plaintiff was [a]ble to complete a normal workday/workweek, 7 performing simple repetitive tasks. [AR 344] Similarly, the examining psychologist, also 8 referenced by the Appeals Council, concluded that Plaintiff was capable of learning a 9 routine, repetitive skill, that her reasoning capacities are adequate, and that she would 10 be able to maintain a regular work schedule. [AR 330] The reasoning levels in the Labor 11 Department s DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES do not belie this evidence. They are 12 levels of general education development, not skill sets for a particular job. DICTIONARY, 13 Appendix C, ยง III. Accordingly, substantial evidence supported the Commissioner s 14 determination that Plaintiff could perform the alternative jobs, each of which was limited 15 to simple and routine tasks. 16 The Court also finds Plaintiff s second argument unpersuasive. Plaintiff 17 asserts that evidence it submitted to the Appeals Council from a publication called Job 18 Browser Pro shows that there are not enough jobs in these categories to satisfy the 19 requirements at the fifth step of the sequential evaluation. But the vocational expert 20 clearly testified that there were [AR 70] and the Appeals Council explicitly relied on that 21 testimony [AR 5]. Thus, Plaintiff s argument essentially is that the evidence from Job 22 Browser Pro that she submitted to the Appeals Council undermined the testimony of the 23 expert, such that the Court should reverse the Commissioner s decision. 24 The Commissioner is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, Howard 25 ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, (9th Cir. 2003), and certainly was not required 26 to explain why an unauthenticated page printed out from a computer screen [AR 20] did 27 not trump the testimony of an expert witness. Plaintiff asserts that other courts have found 28 Job Browser Pro to be reliable information on which an expert might rely. Yet, no expert -2- 1 did so here. As Plaintiff acknowledges, the Ninth Circuit has held that a vocational 2 expert s expertise forms the basis for his testimony, Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 3 1218 (9th Cir. 2005). The Appeals Council certainly was entitled to rely on the vocational 4 expert s testimony, even in the face of the page from Job Browser Pro, in making its 5 determination. 6 7 There being no error of law, and substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner s decision, the decision is affirmed. 8 9 DATED: July 16, 2013 10 11 12 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-
]]>
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.
