Rushfeldt v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
20
Findings & Recommendation: The decision of defendant Commissioner should be reversed and remanded. Re: Social Security Complaint 2 Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 11/13/2009. Signed on 10/30/09 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (ljb)
<![CDATA[
FIL£W09 NOV 03 09:11 USDC-ORN
I N T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E DISTRICT O F O R E G O N
S H A R O N RUSHFELDT,
Plaintiff v. M I C H A E L J. A S T R U E , C o m m i s s i o n e r o f S o c i a l Security, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil N o . 0 8 - 1 4 5 6 - C L FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION
MERRILL SCHNEIDER P.O. B o x 1 6 3 1 0 Portland, Oregon 97292-0310 A t t o r n e y for P l a i n t i f f KENT ROBINSON A c t i n g U n i t e d States A t t o r n e y ADRIAN L. BROWN Assistant U n i t e d States A t t o r n e y 1000 S.W. T h i r d A v e n u e , S u i t e 600 Portland, O R 97204-2904 S T E P H A N I E R. M A R T Z S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t U.S. A t t o r n e y Office o f the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2900, MIS 901 Seattle, W A 9 8 1 0 4 - 7 0 7 5 A t t o r n e y s for D e f e n d a n t
CLARKE, Magistrate Judge: P l a i n t i f f S h a r o n R u s h f e l d t ( " R u s h f e l d t " ) seeks j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Commission e r ' s final decision denying her application for benefits under Titles II and X V I o f the Social Security Act (the "Act"). This court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissione r ' s decision should b e REVERSED and REMANDED for the reasons below.
BACKGROUND
B o r n in 1947 (Tr. 108),1 Rushfeldt has a high school education. Tr. 121. Rushfeldt reports work as a j a n i t o r and housekeeper between 1990 and M a y 2002. Tr. 143. Rushfeldt applied for DIB o n March 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , and again o n February 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , claiming disability since July 1, 1999. Tr. 108113. Rushfeldt also applied for SSI o n February 20, 2004. Tr. 448. Rushfeldt initially alleged disability due to arthritis o f t h e knees. Tr. 115. The Commissioner denied Rushfeldt's applications initially and upon reconsideration. Tr. 4 7 - 5 5 , 7 7 - 8 1 , 4 4 0 - 4 4 3 . An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held a hearing o n November 9, 2006 (Tr. 451-85), and subsequently found Rushfeldt not disabled o n January 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 . Tr. 15-20. The Appeals Council denied review o n April 2, 2008, making the A L l ' s decision the final decision o f the Commissioner. Tr. 5-7. DISABILITY ANALYSIS The Commissioner engages in a sequential process encompassing between one and five steps in determining disability under the meaning o f t h e Act. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987).
ICitations " T r . " refer to indicated pages in the official transcript o f the administrative r e c o r d f i l e d w i t h t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s A n s w e r o n M a r c h 31, 2 0 0 9 ( D o c k e t #12). 2 - FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
At step one, the A L I determines i f t h e claimant is performing substantial gainful activity. I f she is, t h e claimant is n o t disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. I 520(a)(4)(i); 416.920(a)(4)(i). A t step two, the A L I d e t e r m i n e s i f the c l a i m a n t h a s " a severe m e d i c a l l y d e t e r m i n a b l e p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t " that m e e t s t h e t w e l v e m o n t h duration requirement. 404. 1 5 2 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( i i ) ; 4 1 6 . 9 0 9 ; 4 1 6 . 9 2 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( i i ) . impairment, she is not disabled. Id. A t step t h r e e , t h e A L I d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r the s e v e r e i m p a i r m e n t m e e t s o r e q u a l s a " l i s t e d " i m p a i r m e n t i n t h e regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1520(a)(4)(iii); 416.920(a)(4)(iii). I f the 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509;
I f the claimant does not have s u c h a severe
i m p a i r m e n t is d e t e r m i n e d t o e q u a l a l i s t e d i m p a i r m e n t , t h e c l a i m a n t is d i s a b l e d . I f a d j u d i c a t i o n p r o c e e d s b e y o n d s t e p t h r e e t h e A L I m u s t first e v a l u a t e m e d i c a l a n d o t h e r r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e i n a s s e s s i n g t h e c l a i m a n t ' s r e s i d u a l functional c a p a c i t y ( " R F C " ) . T h e c l a i m a n t ' s R F C is a n a s s e s s m e n t o f w o r k - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s t h e c l a i m a n t m a y s t i l l p e r f o r m o n a r e g u l a r a n d continuing basis, despite limitations imposed b y h e r impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e); 4 1 6 . 9 2 0 ( e ) ; S o c i a l S e c u r i t y R u l i n g ( " S S R " ) 9 6 - 8 p ( a v a i l a b l e a t 1996 W L 3 7 4 1 8 4 ) . T h e A L I u s e s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n to d e t e r m i n e i f t h e c l a i m a n t c a n p e r f o r m h e r p a s t r e l e v a n t w o r k at step four. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); 416.920(a)(4)(iv). I f t h e claimant c a n p e r f o r m h e r p a s t r e l e v a n t w o r k , s h e is n o t d i s a b l e d . I f t h e A L I f i n d s t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t ' s R F C p r e c l u d e s performance o f h e r p a s t relevant w o r k the A L I proceeds to step five. A t s t e p f i v e t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r m u s t d e t e r m i n e i f t h e c l a i m a n t is c a p a b l e o f p e r f o r m i n g w o r k existing i n the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 404.1520(f); 416.920(a)(4)(v); 416.920(f); Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 142; Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 ( 9 t h Cir. 1999). I f the
3 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
claimant cannot perform such work, she is disabled. Id. T h e i n i t i a l b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g d i s a b i l i t y rests u p o n t h e claimant. 2 0 C.F.R. §§
404.1512(a); 416.912(a). I f the process reaches the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that "the claimant can perform some other work that exists in the national economy, taking into consideration the c l a i m a n t ' s residual functional capacity, age, education, and w o r k experience." Id. at 1100. I f the Commissioner meets this burden the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 ( g ) , 4 0 4 . 1 5 6 6 ; 4 1 6 . 9 2 0 ( g ) ; 416.966.
THE A L J ' S FINDINGS
The A L l found that Rushfeldt's work activity did not amount to substantial gainful activity at step one in the sequential proceedings. Tr. 17. At step two the A L l found that Rushfeldt had the f o l l o w i n g s e v e r e i m p a i r m e n t s : n o n - i n s u l i n d e p e n d e n t diabetes, m o r b i d obesity, b a c k a n d k n e e p a i n , and sleep apnea. Tr. 18. The A L l found that none o f these impairments met o r equaled a listing at step three, and assessed Rushfeldt's RFC: [T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to occasionally lift o r carry 50 pounds and to frequently lift o r carry 25 pounds; to sit for an unlimited amount o f time for one hour at a time; to stand for 6 hours 1 h o u r at a time; to walk 6 hours in an 8 hour day without walking more than a mile; and to occasionally climb stairs, craw, s t o o p , a n d balance. Tr. 18. The A L l found that this RFC allowed Rushfeldt to perform her past relevant work as a "semi-skilled" caregiver, housekeeper, and child monitor. Tr. 19.
S T A N D A R D OF R E V I E W
T h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m u s t affirm t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s d e c i s i o n i f t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r a p p l i e d proper legal standards and the findings are supported b y substantial evidence in the record. 42
4 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
U.S.C. § 405(g); Batson v. Commissioner f o r Social Security Administration, 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). This court must weigh the evidence that supports and detracts from the A L l ' s conclusion. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007)(citing R e d d i c k v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998)). The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that o f the Commissioner. Id. (citing Robbins v. Social Security Administration, 466 F.3d 8 8 0 , 8 8 2 (9th Cir. 2006)). Variable interpretations o f the evidence are insignificant i f the Commissioner's
interpretation is a rational reading. Id., see also Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193.
DISCUSSION
Rushfe1dt contends that the A L I inappropriately assessed the medical evidence and her credibility. Rushfe1dt consequently asserts that the ALI made erroneous findings at step four i n the sequential proceedings, and that the ALI should have found her disabled at step five.
I.
Medical Evidence
Rushfe1dt challenges the A L l ' s evaluation o f treating physician Dr. Fryer and examining
physician Dr. Cheek.
A.
Standards: Medical Evidence
Generally, the A L I must accord greater weight to the opinion o f a treating physician than that o f an examining physician. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). I f two opinions conflict, an A L I must give "specific and legitimate reasons" for discrediting a treating physician in favor o f an examining physician. Id., at 830. The A L I may reject a physician's opinion predicated upon the subjective complaints o f a claimant deemed not credible. Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). The A L I may not, however, reject physician opinions predicated upon
5 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
reports o f a claimant deemed not credible where independent clinical testing supports the physician's opinion. Ryan v. Comm'r, 528 F.3d 1194, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2008).
B.
Treating Physician Dr. Fryer
Dr. Fryer treated Rushfeldt on July 13, 2004, and between October 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , and August 24, 2006. Tr. 3 8 3 , 4 0 8 - 4 2 4 . During this time Dr. Fryer diagnosed and treated Rushfeldt's diabetes, headaches, sleep apnea, cellulitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease ("GERD"), and hypertension. Id. On November 6, 2006, Dr. Fryer completed a form submitted b y Rushfeldt's attorney summarizing these diagnoses (Tr. 402) and stating that Rushfeldt could occasionally lift a maximum o f twenty pounds, could lift no weight frequently, could stand and or walk at least two hours in an eight-hour workday, and must periodically alternate sitting and standing to relieve pain. Tr. 404. Dr. Fryer declined to indicate that Rushfeldt met a disorder listed in the Commissioner's regulations (Tr. 404), and indicated that Rushfeldt would n o t miss work two or more days p e r month due to h e r impairments. T r . 4 0 5 . The ALJ omitted discussion o f Dr. Fryer's clinical diagnoses, notes, or opinions. Instead, the ALJ noted only Dr. Fryer's November 6 , 2 0 0 6 , questionnaire. Tr. 19. Here the ALJ wrote that Dr. Fryer "stated his b e l i e f that claimant could lift 20 pounds, stand or walk for 2 hours, had an u n l i m i t e d s i t t i n g c a p a c i t y i f s h e c a n a l t e r n a t e b e t w e e n s i t t i n g and s t a n d i n g , a n d v a r i o u s p o s t u r a l limitations." Tr. 19. This summary does not accurately reflect the record. Dr. Fryer wrote that Rushfeldt could lift twenty pounds on an "occasional" basis only, and could not frequently lift any weight at all. Tr. 404. The A L l ' s truncated discussion o f Dr. Fryer's opinion is thus erroneous both in omitting Dr.
6 - FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
Fryer's clinical notes, and in misconstruing Dr. Freyer's November 2006 work limitations. This r e a s o n i n g s h o u l d n o t b e sustained.
C.
Examining Physician Dr. Cheek
Dr. Cheek evaluated Rushfeldt for Disability Determination Services ( " D D S ' y o n October 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 . Tr. 316-19. Dr. Cheek concluded that Rushfeldt showed clinical signs o f knee pain upon examination, and assessed diagnoses o f knee and back pain. T r . 3 l 8 - 1 9 . Dr. Cheek wrote that Rushfeldt could stand and walk "about six hours in an eight-hour workday" and could sit " a b o u t six hours in an eight hour workday." Tr. 319. Dr. Cheek also stated that Rushfeldt could lift o r carry "occasionally 50 pounds" and "frequently 50 pounds."3 Id. Finally, Dr. Cheek wrote that Rushfeldt should not frequently bend, stoop, or crouch due to her knee pain. !d. The ALJ described Dr. C h e e k ' s opinion: Dr. Cheek had the opportunity to examine the claimant and her treatment records prior to rendering her opinion. A t that time, the c l a i m a n t ' s gait was normal, her straight leg raising exam was negative, found no crepitus, effusion, deformities, o r loss in m o t o r o r m u s c l e strength. F u r t h e r , t h e n e u r o l o g i c a l p o r t i o n o f t h e e x a m w a s e n t i r e l y normal. Tr. 19. This analysis fails to note Dr. C h e e k ' s diagnostic conclusions o r workplace limitations. I t is not based upon the record and therefore should not be sustained.
D. Conclusion: M e d i c a l Source Statements
I n summary, the A L I ' s findings regarding both Dr. Fryer and Dr. Cheek omitted significant
2DDS is a federally-funded state agency that makes eligibility determinations o n b e h a l f and under the supervision o f the Social Security Administration pursuant to 42 V . S . c . § 421(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1503; 416.903. 3 0ne o f these figures m a y represent a typographical error.
7 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
portions o f t h e i r respective opinions. These findings are not based upon the record and should not b e sustained.
II.
Credibility
T h e A L l ' s c r e d i b i l i t y findings a d d r e s s e d R u s h f e l d t ' s a c t i v i t i e s o f d a i l y l i v i n g a n d m e d i c a l
record. Tr. 18-19.
A.
C r e d i b i l i t y Standard
Once a claimant shows an underlying impairment which m a y "reasonably b e expected to p r o d u c e p a i n o r o t h e r s y m p t o m s a l l e g e d , " absent a finding o f m a l i n g e r i n g , t h e A L J m u s t p r o v i d e "clear and convincing" reasons for finding a claimant not credible. Lingenfelter, 504 F . 3 d at 1036 (citing Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996)). The A L l ' s credibility findings must b e "sufficiently specific to permit the reviewing court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit t h e c l a i m a n t ' s testimony." Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing
B u n n e l l v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345-46 (9th Cir. 1991) (en bane)). The ALJ m a y consider
objective medical evidence and the claimant's treatment history, as well as the c l a i m a n t ' s daily activities, w o r k record, and o b s e r v a t i o n s o f physicians and third p a r t i e s w i t h p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f the c l a i m a n t ' s functional limitations. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284. The ALJ m a y additionally employ ordinary techniques o f credibility evaluation, such as weighing inconsistent statements regarding symptoms b y the claimant. Id. Once a claimant establishes an impairment, the ALJ m a y not, h o w e v e r , m a k e a n e g a t i v e c r e d i b i l i t y finding " s o l e l y b e c a u s e " the c l a i m a n t ' s s y m p t o m t e s t i m o n y " i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a t e d a f f i r m a t i v e l y b y o b j e c t i v e m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e . " R o b b i n s , 4 6 6 F . 3 d a t 883.
III
8 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
B.
Credibility Analysis a. Activities o f D a i l y L i v i n g
The A L I noted Rushfeldt's testimony that she cooks, takes children to the park, uses public transportation, vacuums, cleans, grocery shops, and rode a bike in 2004. Tr. 19. The A L I also cited R u s h f e l d t ' s testimony that she is "always moving." Id. The A L I concluded b y finding that a vocational expert described these activities as " a t the medium exertional capacity level." Id. The court first notes that the vocational expert offered no testimony regarding the workplace e x e r t i o n a l l e v e l o f Rush feldt's activities o f daily living. Tr. 480-85. The A L I ' s finding regarding " m e d i u m " exertional effort associated with these activities is not based upon the record and should not b e s u s t a i n e d . The A L I also found that Rushfeldt's activities "hardly describe limited [sic] to sedentary work that would ' g r i d o u t ' according to claimant's counsel." Tr. 19. This reasoning implies that Rushfeldt promulgated contradictory testimony regarding sedentary work. However, the A L I fails to identify the manner in which Rushfeldt's reported daily activities are inconsistent w i t h the l i m i t a t i o n s R u s h f e l d t d e s c r i b e d in h e r o w n testimony. T h i s r e a s o n i n g s h o u l d a l s o n o t b e s u s t a i n e d . b. M e d i c a l Record
The A L I also found Rushfeldt's credibility unsupported b y the medical evidence, citing the opinions o f Drs. Fryer and Cheek. The A L I ' s discussion o f these opinions is not b a s e d u p o n the record, as discussed above. Therefore, the A L I ' s reliance upon his analysis o f the medical record i n f i n d i n g R u s h f e l d t n o t c r e d i b l e s h o u l d n o t b e sustained.
III
9 - FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
C.
C r e d i b i l i t y Conclusion
The A L l ' s reasoning regarding Rushfeldt's credibility and her RFC assessment is circular. The A L l ' s references to the medical record furthermore do not accurately reflect the record. For these reasons the A L l ' s credibility findings should not be sustained. III. Lay Testimony Rushfeldt asserts that the A L l failed to consider that the lay testimony supports her own testimony. P l . ' s Opening Br. 10. Rushfeldt fails to cite an applicable legal standard for this assertion, and the Commissioner's response fails to address this argument. The A L l omitted any reference to lay testimony. A. Standards: L a y W i t n e s s T e s t i m o n y 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d);
The A L l has a duty to consider lay witness testimony.
404.1545(a)(3); 416.913(d); 416.945(a)(3); Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). Friends and family members in a position to observe the claimant's symptoms and daily activities are competent to testify regarding the claimant's condition. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915,918-19 (9th Cir. 1993). The A L l may not reject such testimony without comment, and he must give germane reasons forrejectinglaytestimony. Nguyen v. Chater, 100F.3d 1462,1467 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Valentine v. Comm'r, 574 F.3d 6 8 5 , 6 9 4 (9th Cir. 2009). B. Analysis
On March 4 , 2 0 0 4 , Rushfeldt's sister, Darlene Bartlett, submitted a third party report to the record. Tr.214-22. Bartlett wrote that Rushfeldt cannot walk far (Tr. 215) and prepares food daily. Tr. 216. Writing in the first person, Bartlett continued that she does her own household chores. Tr.
10 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
216. Bartlett also wrote that Rushfeldt shops for food twice a w e e k (Tr. 217), reads, watches television, listens to the radio, takes walks, and goes to church. Tr. 218. Bartlett indicated that Rushfeldt is limited i n lifting, squatting, standing, walking, kneeling, and stair climbing. Tr. 219. T h e A L I failed to cite B a r t l e t t ' s testimony, and provided no reasons for rejecting it. Such s i l e n t o m i s s i o n is e r r o n e o u s .
S t o u t v. Comm ' Y , 454 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2006).
The
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h i s o m i s s i o n are d i s c u s s e d b e l o w .
IV.
Step Four Findings
R u s h f e l d t c h a l l e n g e s t h e A L I ' s f i n d i n g t h a t s h e c o u l d p e r f o r m h e r p a s t r e l e v a n t w o r ~ at s t e p
four i n the sequential proceedings. P l . ' s Opening Br. 18.
T h e A L I found that R u s h f e l d t c o u l d
perform h e r p a s t relevant w o r k as an "unskilled janitor, a semi-skilled caregiver/housekeeper, a n d semi-skilled child m o n i t o r . " Tr. 19.
I n e s t a b l i s h i n g w h e t h e r a c l a i m a n t m a y r e t u r n to h e r p a s t r e l e v a n t w o r k , t h e A L I m u s t
consider the claimant's w o r k as she performed it, rather than relying u p o n generic j o b descriptions. S S R 82-61 *1-2 (available at 1982 W L 31387), S S R 82-62 *3 (available a t 1982 W L 31386). T h e A L I cited this standard (Tr. 19), b u t also found that R u s h f e l d t ' s past relevant w o r k as a child m o n i t o r was at a m e d i u m exertional capacity. Tr. 17. Rushfeldt testified that she b a b y sits a two-year o l d and does n o t p i c k h e r up. Tr. 363. She also testified that she cannot lift other children u n d e r h e r care. Tr. 466. Finally, Rushfeldt testified that h e r young granddaughter weighs approximately t w e n t y pounds, and that she does not lift the child i n caring for her. Tr. 476. T h e C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s r e g u l a t i o n s s t a t e t h a t m e d i u m l e v e l w o r k e n t a i l s " l i f t i n g n o m o r e t h a n 50 p o u n d s a t a t i m e w i t h frequent lifting a n d carrying o f objects weighing up to 25 pounds." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(c);
11 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A n O N
416.967©). R u s h f e l d t ' s testimony does not describe such medium -level work. Therefore the A L l ' s finding regarding Rushfe1dt's past relevant work is not based upon the m a n n e r i n w h i c h Rushfeldt performed it. The A L l ' s finding is erroneous and should not be sustained.
v.
S t e p Five F i n d i n g s
F i n a l l y , R u s h f e l d t alleges t h a t t h e A L l i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d t h e m e d i c a l - v o c a t i o n a l g u i d e l i n e s
at "step three" i n the sequential proceedings. PI.' s Opening Br., 16. This assertion is first erroneous because the A L l applies the medical-vocational guidelines at step five, not step three. 2 0 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1520(a)(4)(v); 416.920(a)(4)(v). Step three findings address listed impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1 5 2 0 ( d ) ; 4 1 6 . 9 2 0 ( d ) . R u s h f e l d t also asserts that a claimant o f "advanced age" and restricted to " l i g h t " w o r k is disabled u n d e r the C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s regulations. PI. ' s Opening Br., 16. The regulations i n fact state that an individual restricted to light work who is o f "advanced age" is disabled where she has no transferable skills. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 202.01; 202.04; 202.06; 202.08. I f the individual has transferable skills, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 202.02; 202.05; 202.07. T h e A L l m a d e n o f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g R u s h f e l d t ' s t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y o f skills. H e r e t h e A L l m u s t identify the c l a i m a n t ' s acquired work skills, and specific occupations to w h i c h t h e s e skills are transferable. S S R 82-41 at *7 (1982 W L 31389). The A L l may draw u p o n a vocational e x p e r t ' s testimony o r publications specified i n the Commissioner's regulations. Id. Rushfeldt n o w cites the vocational e x p e r t ' s testimony that her past relevant work shows no transferable skills. PI. Opening Br. 17. However, recent jurisprudence clearly establishes that the A L l , n o t the reviewing court, m u s t
12 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
make findings regarding transferability o f skills under the C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s regulations. B r a y v.
Comm'r, 554 F.3d 1219, 1225-1226 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, this court cannot n o w perform a
transferability o f skills analysis for the ALJ. Rushfeldt finally asserts that, because the record supports a finding that h e r p a s t w o r k is "light," she is consequently disabled under the medical-vocational guidelines. P I . ' s Opening Br. 17. T h i s c l a i m c o n f u s e s t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s s e q u e n t i a l d i s a b i l i t y analysis. T h e m e d i c a l - v o c a t i o n a l guidelines do n o t a p p l y to the A L l ' s step four findings regarding the exertional demands o f a c l a i m a n t ' s p a s t r e l e v a n t w o r k . B e c a u s e the A L J m u s t d e t e r m i n e R u s h f e l d t ' s e x e r t i o n a l c a p a c i t y upon remand, this court cannot now find Rushfeldt disabled under the grids. REMAND The decision whether to remand for further proceedings o r for immediate payment o f b e n efits is within the discretion o f t h e court. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000.), cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000). The issue turns on the utility o f further proceedings. A r e m a n d for
a n a w a r d o f b e n e f i t s i s a p p r o p r i a t e w h e n no u s e f u l p u r p o s e w o u l d b e s e r v e d b y f u r t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e proceedings o r w h e n the record has been fully developed and the evidence is insufficient to support the C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s decision. Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1989). U n d e r the "crediting as true" doctrine, evidence should be credited and an immediate award o f benefits directed where " ( 1 ) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting s u c h e v i d e n c e , (2) t h e r e a r e n o o u t s t a n d i n g i s s u e s t h a t m u s t b e r e s o l v e d b e f o r e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f disability can b e made, and (3) it is clear from the record that the ALJ would b e required t o find the claimant disabled were such evidence credited." Harman, 211 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Smolen, 80
13 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
F.3d at 1292). T h e " c r e d i t i n g as t r u e " doctrine is n o t a m a n d a t o r y rule i n the N i n t h Circuit, b u t leaves t h e c o u r t flexibility in determining w h e t h e r to enter an award o f benefits u p o n reversing the C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s decision. Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F . 3 d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing D o d r i l l , 12 F . 3 d at 919); N g u y e n , 100 F . 3 d at 1466-67; Bunnell, 947 F . 2 d at 348. H e r e , t h e A L J e r r o n e o u s l y a s s e s s e d R u s h f e l d ' s testimony, t h e o p i n i o n s o f Drs. F r y e r a n d C h e e k , a n d t h e l a y w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y . T h o u g h t h e A L J c a l l e d a v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t to R u s h f e l d t ' s h e a r i n g , b o t h t h e A L J a n d R u s h f e l d t ' s c o u n s e l failed to e l i c i t t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t o f l i m i t a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d b y R u s h f e l d t a n d h e r s i s t e r , as w e l l as t h e o m i t t e d m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e . T r . 4 8 2 - 8 4 . T h e v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t also failed to a d d r e s s R u s h f e l d t ' s p a s t r e l e v a n t w o r k as she p e r f o r m e d it, instead addressing R u s h f e l d t ' s child m o n i t o r i n g w o r k i n accordance w i t h lifting requirements as the position is generally performed. Tr. 483. I n s u c h instances, award o f benefits is inappropriate. Harman, 211 F . 3 d at 1180. T h e m a t t e r m u s t b e r e m a n d e d for f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s a d d r e s s i n g t h e i m p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e d e v i d e n c e c i t e d a b o v e . Id. I f n e c e s s a r y , t h e A L J m u s t then revise his RFC analysis and a p p l y the correct medical-vocational g u i d e l i n e o r o b t a i n v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y regarding Rushfe1dt' s w o r k p l a c e l i m i t a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , t h e A L J m u s t m a k e a d e q u a t e s t e p f o u r a n d five f i n d i n g s i n c o r p o r a t i n g a n y r e v i s e d f i n d i n g s .
SCHEDULING O R D E R
T h e a b o v e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n are r e f e r r e d to a U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e f o r r e v i e w . O b j e c t i o n s , i f a n y , a r e d u e t e n d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e t h i s o r d e r i s filed. I f n o o b j e c t i o n s are filed, r e v i e w o f the F i n d i n g s and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n will go u n d e r advisement o n t h a t date. I f objections are filed, any p a r t y m a y file a response within fourteen days after the date t h e
14 - F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
objections are filed. Review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement w h e n the response is due o r filed, whichever date is earlier. IT IS SO ORDERED. D a t e d t h i s ~ a y o f O c t o b e r , 2009. Mark D. Clarke U n i t e d States M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e
15 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
