James Boltinhouse v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2010cv01412 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. For these reasons, the Agency's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. **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 JAMES BOLTINHOUSE, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ED CV 10-1412 PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff s appeal from a decision by 19 Defendant Social Security Administration ( the Agency ), denying his 20 application for Supplemental Security Insurance ( SSI ) benefits. 21 Plaintiff claims that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred when 22 he concluded that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to 23 perform his prior work as a sewing machine operator despite the fact 24 that he was limited to work involving simple one- and two-part 25 instructions. 26 that the ALJ erred and remands the case to the Agency for further 27 proceedings. 28 For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes 1 II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 2 In August 2008, Plaintiff applied for SSI, alleging that he 3 became disabled on January 1, 2007, due to an inability to read and 4 write, borderline intellectual functioning, and depression. 5 (Administrative Record ( AR ) 99-105, 112, 144.) 6 denied initially and on reconsideration. 7 granted a hearing before an ALJ. 8 appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing and testified as 9 did a vocational expert. He then requested and was On April 21, 2010, Plaintiff (AR 22-42.) On May 28, 2010, the ALJ 10 issued a decision denying benefits. 11 to the Appeals Council, which denied review. 12 13 His claim was (AR 9-18.) Plaintiff appealed This appeal followed. III. DISCUSSION Examining psychologist Mark Pierce evaluated Plaintiff at the 14 request of the Agency. 15 had the capacity to complete simple and repetitive vocational skills 16 . . . and could remember and comply with simple one[-] and two[-] 17 part instructions. 18 establishing Plaintiff s residual functional capacity. 19 Yet, when he posed the operative hypothetical question to the 20 vocational expert, he did not include a limitation on one- and two- 21 part instructions. 22 terms of restrictions to routine, repetitive tasks, entry-level 23 work, and no fast-paced work such as conveyor belt or piece work. 24 (AR 40.) 25 limitations could perform Plaintiff s past work as a sewing machine 26 operator. 27 28 (AR 224-30.) (AR 229.) (AR 40.) He determined that Plaintiff The ALJ adopted these limitations in (AR 16.) Rather, he couched the hypothetical in The vocational expert concluded that a person with those (AR 40.) Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred when he failed to include in the hypothetical question a restriction for work involving one2 1 and two-part instructions. 2 this limitation restricts him to jobs requiring Reasoning Level 1 3 and, therefore, cannot perform his prior work as a sewing machine 4 operator because that job requires Reasoning Level 2. 5 of Occupational Titles ( DOT ) No. 787.685-010. 6 The Agency disagrees. (Joint Stip. at 12-16.) He argues that See Dictionary It argues that Plaintiff is mixing apples 7 and oranges when he argues that Reasoning Level 1 is equivalent to 8 residual functional capacity findings. 9 phrase simple, repetitive tasks is the same as one- and two-part 10 instructions. 11 the Court sides with Plaintiff. 12 (Joint Stip. at 8, 16.) In the Agency s view, the For the following reasons, There is no doubt that Dr. Pierce limited Plaintiff to work 13 involving one- and two-part instructions and that the ALJ accepted 14 Dr. Pierce s opinion. 15 and the parties do not contest that fact. 16 ALJ s failure to include this limitation in the hypothetical question 17 to the vocational expert amounts to reversible error. 18 whether Plaintiff is capable of performing the job of sewing machine 19 operator despite the fact that he is capable of performing jobs that 20 entail only one- and two-part instructions. 21 (AR 16.) The record is clear on this point The issue is whether the This turns on As Plaintiff points out, the job of sewing machine operator 22 requires Level 2 reasoning. 23 Level 2 reasoning requires an employee to: 24 Apply commonsense understanding to carry out detailed but 25 uninvolved written or oral instructions. 26 problems involving a few concrete variables in or from 27 standardized situations. 28 3 Deal with 1 See DOT No. 787.685-010; DOT, Appendix C, Components of the 2 Definition Trailer, 1991 WL 688702, (4th ed. rev. 1991). 3 Plaintiff contends that he is not capable of understanding and 4 carrying out detailed instructions. He argues that, consistent with 5 Dr. Pierce s view, he is limited to Reasoning Level 1, which requires 6 that an employee: 7 Apply commonsense understanding to carry out simple one- or 8 two-step instructions. 9 with occasional or no variables in or from these situations 10 Deal with standardized situations encountered on the job. 11 See DOT, Appendix C, Components of the Definition Trailer, 1991 WL 12 688702, (4th ed. rev. 1991). 13 The Agency contends that the reasoning levels outlined in the 14 DOT are commensurate with education levels and are not the same as 15 residual functional capacity findings. 16 Though the Court recognizes the distinction, it concludes that it is 17 a distinction without a difference. 18 Plaintiff s position that a limitation on one- and two-part 19 instructions is commensurate with Reasoning Level 1. 20 Astrue, 2011 WL 2173806, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2011) (concluding 21 that Dr. Mark Pierce s restriction to work involving one- and two- 22 part instructions precluded work involving Level 2 reasoning); Reaza 23 v. Astrue, 2011 WL 999181, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2011) (same); 24 Murphy v. Astrue, 2011 WL 124723, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2011) 25 (same); Watson v. Astrue, 2010 WL 4269545, at *4 n.4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26 22, 2010) (same). 27 in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert the fact that 28 Plaintiff was limited to work involving one- and two-part (Joint Stip. at 16-17.) The weight of authority favors See Garcia v. As such, the ALJ erred when he failed to include 4 1 instructions. 2 to explain how someone with this limitation can perform work 3 requiring Level 2 reasoning. 4 limitation in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert and 5 the vocational expert should explain whether Plaintiff can perform 6 his past work as a sewing machine operator--as that job is typically 7 performed in the economy or as it was performed by Plaintiff--and, if 8 so, how he can do that despite his limitations. 9 This error resulted in the vocational expert failing On remand, the ALJ should include this For these reasons, the Agency s decision is reversed and the 10 case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 11 decision. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: September 21, 2011 14 15 16 ________________________________ PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S:\PJW\Cases-CLOSED\Closed-Soc Sec\BOLTINHOUSE, J 1412\memorandum 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.