Valerie Rubalcava v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2011cv09393 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2012)

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. **PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS** (ca)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VALERIE RUBALCAVA, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 11-9393-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff appeals the decision of Defendant Social Security 19 Administration ( the Agency ), denying her application for 20 Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ). 21 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred when he found that she could 22 work despite her low IQ. 23 finds that the ALJ did not err. 24 25 II. She claims that the For the reasons discussed below, the Court SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS In October 2008, Plaintiff applied for SSI, alleging that she had 26 been unable to work since September 2006 because of a learning 27 disability. 28 was denied initially and on reconsideration, after which she requested (Administrative Record ( AR ) 135, 171.) Her application 1 and was granted a hearing before an ALJ. 2 Following the hearing in September 2010, the ALJ issued a decision, 3 finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. (AR 33-40.) Plaintiff 4 appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied review. (AR 1-5.) 5 action followed. 6 III. 7 (AR 28, 29, 47-59, 65-66.) This ANALYSIS The ALJ determined that Plaintiff could perform work at all 8 exertional levels but that her learning disorder would limit her to 9 simple, repetitive, routine tasks with only occasional contact with 10 the public. 11 that an individual with these limitations could work as an industrial 12 cleaner, kitchen helper, and toy assembler, the ALJ concluded that 13 Plaintiff was not disabled. 14 (AR 36.) Based on the testimony of a vocational expert (AR 26-27, 39-40.) Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in determining her residual 15 functional capacity because he did not take into account her low IQ. 16 She points to a website--http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/ iq04.htm - 17 which she explains quantifies her IQ score in the bottom 10% of the 18 population and limits her to jobs requiring no more than general 19 learning ability level 5. 20 because the jobs identified by the vocational expert and incorporated 21 into the decision by the ALJ require a general learning ability of 22 level 4 or higher, the ALJ erred in concluding that she could work. 23 (Joint Stip. at 3-5.) 24 that the ALJ did not err. 25 (Joint Stip. at 4-5.) She argues that, For the following reasons, the Court concludes The general learning ability aptitude scale is not comparable to 26 IQ. See Gibson v. Astrue, 2008 WL 5101822, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27 30, 2008) (rejecting argument that general learning ability aptitude 28 scale is comparable to IQ); see also Wilson v. Astrue, 834 F. Supp.2d 2 1 1295, 1302-03 (N.D. Okla. 2011); and Vasquez v. Astrue, 2009 WL 2 3672519, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2009). 3 that the ALJ erred in not equating the two and concluding that she 4 could not work is rejected. 5 Thus, Plaintiff s argument Furthermore, in determining that Plaintiff could work, the ALJ 6 relied on the findings of examining psychologist Rosa Colonna, who 7 determined in November 2008 that Plaintiff had a verbal IQ of 79, a 8 performance IQ of 72, and full scale IQ of 74. 9 the doctor acknowledged that these results put Plaintiff in the (AR 250-54.) Though 10 borderline range, Dr. Colonna still concluded that Plaintiff could 11 understand, remember, and carry out short, simplistic instructions 12 without difficulty and would have no more than a mild inability to 13 interact appropriately with supervisors, coworkers, and peers. 14 253-54.) 15 (AR In addition, in December 2008, psychiatrist D. Williams reviewed 16 Plaintiff s medical records, including Dr. Colonna s IQ tests, and 17 opined that Plaintiff was capable of unskilled, non-public work. 18 266-70.) 19 2009 and concurred with Dr. Williams. 20 these doctors, too, in concluding that Plaintiff could work. 21 38.) 22 scores in evaluating her ability to work and in concluding that she 23 could. 24 reviewing doctors, which amounts to substantial evidence. 25 Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding 26 that opinion of non-examining medical expert constitutes substantial 27 evidence when it is consistent with other independent evidence in the 28 record, and opinion of examining physician alone constitutes (AR Reviewing psychologist Judith Levinson did the same thing in (AR 271-72.) The ALJ relied on (AR 37- Thus, it is clear that the ALJ considered Plaintiff s IQ test Further, the ALJ s decision is supported by the examining and 3 See 1 substantial evidence when it rests on independent examination 2 findings).1 3 As to Plaintiff s argument that the ALJ failed to account for her 4 low IQ scores in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert, 5 again, the Court disagrees. 6 additional limitations in the hypothetical question to account for 7 Plaintiff s low IQ scores because further limitations were not 8 supported by the medical evidence. 9 1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2005). The ALJ was not required to incorporate See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d The limitations, as outlined by the 10 doctors, did not bar jobs requiring general learning ability level 4 11 and the ALJ did not err in not including such a limitation in the 12 hypothetical question. IV. 13 14 15 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Agency s decision is affirmed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED: August 24, 2012. 18 19 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 S:\PJW\Cases-Soc Sec\RUBALCAVA, 9393\memorandum opinion and order.wpd 25 26 27 28 1 The ALJ noted that Plaintiff attended special education classes in high school but that her disability was deemed to be nonsevere, and that her daily activities included helping her mother with chores, cleaning the bathroom, preparing food, and going out two or three times a week. (AR 37, 38.) 4

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.