Ramona Flores v. Michael J Astrue, No. 2:2012cv10818 - Document 14 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this decision. (bem)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMONA FLORES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 1/ SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 ) Case No. CV 12-10818 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 Ramona Flores ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 19 20 decision denying her application for disability benefits. Plaintiff contends, among 21 other things, that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred at step two by finding 22 no severe mental impairments. (Joint Stip. at 4-11, 14-15.) Specifically, Plaintiff 23 argues that the ALJ misinterpreted the medical evidence by failing to translate 24 language used in Plaintiff s workers compensation disability reports into 25 comparable Social Security terminology. (Id. at 8-9.) The Court agrees with 26 Plaintiff for the reasons discussed below. 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 A. Step Two Requires Only a De Minimis Showing of Limitation 2 Step two serves as a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless 3 claims. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 4 Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996)). An impairment is not severe 5 only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a 6 minimal effect on an individual[ ]s ability to work. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290 7 (emphasis added, internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Such a finding 8 must be clearly established by medical evidence. Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 9 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Social Security Ruling 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at 10 *3). With respect to mental limitations in social functioning, concentration, 11 persistence, or pace, a non-severe finding is appropriate only if they are rated as 12 none or mild. See Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2007); 20 13 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1). 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. The ALJ Erred By Misinterpreting the Medical Evidence Upon Which He Relied The ALJ misinterpreted the medical evidence in deciding that Plaintiff s mental limitations were mild and, ultimately, non-severe. The ALJ relied on a Work Function Impairment Form submitted by Plaintiff s examining physician, Dr. Warren F. Procci. (Administrative Record ( AR ) at 25) ( I find this assessment supports the conclusion that the claimant s mental health impairments are nonsevere. ) However, Dr. Procci filled out the Form, provided by the California Department of Industrial Relations, for Plaintiff s workers compensation disability report. (Id. at 231); see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 43 Ex. A (2008). The ALJ misconstrued Dr. Procci s assessment because he failed to translate the relevant workers compensation terminology into Social Security disability vernacular. Dr. Procci used terms that carry distinct meanings in the workers compensation context when he diagnosed Plaintiff. (See AR at 247); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 43 (2008). He found that Plaintiff had a slight impairment in the 2 1 ability to follow instructions; maintain a work pace appropriate to a given work load; 2 make generalizations, evaluations or decisions without immediate supervision; and 3 accept and carry out responsibility for direction, control, and planning. (AR at 247.) 4 Dr. Procci further noted that Plaintiff had a slight to moderate impairment in the 5 ability to perform complex or varied tasks; relate to other people beyond giving and 6 receiving; and influence people. (Id.) In workers compensation parlance, a slight 7 level of impairment means a noticeable impairment, while a moderate 8 impairment means a marked impairment. (See Joint Stip. at 9); Piz v. Astrue, 2008 9 WL 4567126 at *3 n.3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 43 10 (2008). 11 Courts have repeatedly held that an ALJ s opinion is not supported by 12 substantial evidence where he fails to translate the terms slight and moderate 13 from the workers compensation setting into the context of Social Security disability 14 determinations. See Desrosiers v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 574, 15 576 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that ALJ s decision was not supported by substantial 16 evidence because the ALJ had not adequately considered definitional differences 17 between the California workers compensation system and the Social Security 18 Act. ); Piz, 2008 WL 4567126, at *3 ( the Court is unable to affirm the ALJ s 19 assessment of the mental limitations caused by plaintiff s mental impairment 20 because . . . it is evident from the hearing decision that the ALJ failed to consider the 21 [workers compensation] definitions of the terms slight, moderate, and 22 severe. ); Payan v. Chater, 959 F. Supp. 1197, 1204 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (ALJ failed 23 to properly consider the doctor s use of workers compensation terminology slight 24 to moderate limitations ). 25 Here, the ALJ failed to translate the workers compensation terms slight and 26 moderate into Social Security disability terminology. Properly read, Dr, Procci 27 opined that Plaintiff suffers from noticeable impairments in the ability to follow 28 instructions; maintain a work pace appropriate to a given work load; make 3 1 generalizations, evaluations or decisions without immediate supervision; and accept 2 and carry out responsibility for direction, control, and planning, and noticeable to 3 marked impairments in ability to perform complex or varied tasks; relate to other 4 people beyond giving and receiving; and influence people. (See AR at 247); Cal. 5 Code Regs., tit. 8, § 43 (2008). 6 C. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Medical Evidence Does Not Clearly Establish the Non-Severity of Plaintiff s Mental Impairment Because the ALJ misinterpreted the medical evidence, he does not clearly establish the non-severity of Plaintiff s mental impairment. The ALJ did not explore whether Plaintiff s noticeable and noticeable to marked impairments ha[ve] no more than a minimal effect on an [Plaintiff s] ability to work. See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290. The Court does not find clear evidence that Plaintiff s noticeable limitations in pace (to maintain a work pace appropriate to a given work load ), and noticeable to marked limitations in social functioning (to relate to other people beyond giving and receiving ), are rated as none or mild. See Webb, 433 F.3d at 687; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1). Further, if the ALJ was uncertain about the significance of Dr. Procci s opinion of Plaintiff s mental limitations, then the ALJ failed in his duty to adequately develop the record. See Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983) ( This duty exists even when the claimant is represented by counsel. ). In cases of mental impairments, this duty is especially important. DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 (9th Cir. 1991). As such, the ALJ does not clearly establish the non-severity of Plaintiff s mental impairments, and the Court is unable to affirm the ALJ s opinion. D. Remand is Warranted With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 4 1 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 2 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 3 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 4 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 5 a plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is 6 appropriate. See id. at 594. 7 On remand, the ALJ shall obtain, if necessary, additional information and 8 clarification regarding Plaintiff s impairments. On the basis of this information, the 9 ALJ shall then reassess the severity of Plaintiff s impairments at step two with 10 attention to Dr. Procci s opinion. 11 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 12 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 13 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 14 decision.2/ 15 16 Dated: October 22, 2013 17 ___________________________ 18 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2/ In light of the Court s remand instructions, it is unnecessary to address 28 Plaintiff s remaining contention. (See Joint Stip. at 15-17, 19-20.) 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.
