Mondonna P. Grenowich v. Nancy A. Berryhill, No. 5:2017cv00986 - Document 24 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. the Agency's decision that Plaintiff is not disabled is affirmed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. (See document for further details.) (sbou)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mondonna P. Grenowich v. Nancy A. Berryhill Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MONDONNA P. GRENOWICH, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ED CV 17-986-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security 20 Administration (“the Agency”), denying her applications for Disability 21 Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). 22 She contends that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred when he 23 determined that she could work at her former job. 24 explained below, the Agency’s decision is affirmed. 25 26 27 28 For the reasons II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS In August 2015, Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI, alleging that she had been disabled since September 2014, due to a “neck injury, Dockets.Justia.com 1 lower back, [and] broken foot.” (Administrative Record (“AR”) 184-93, 2 230.) 3 confusion, unable to focus, depression, [and] emotional breakdowns.” 4 (AR 252.) 5 reconsideration and she requested and was granted a hearing before an 6 ALJ. 7 decision, finding that she was not disabled. 8 Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied review. 9 1-3.) She later reported “[m]ental capacity deteriorating,” “mental Her applications were denied initially and on (AR 73-126, 141-46.) Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a (AR 20-35, 40-72.) (AR She then filed the instant action. 10 III. 11 ANALYSIS 12 Plaintiff worked as an administrative clerk for the County of 13 Riverside until September 2014. 14 things, that the County failed to accommodate her back condition, 15 which caused her emotional stress on the job. 16 (AR 49.) She testified, among other (AR 59-60.) The vocational expert testified that the administrative clerk job 17 was light work but that Plaintiff performed it at a sedentary level. 18 (AR 64-65.) 19 performing light work, with some limitations. 20 the vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could 21 still perform her past work as an administrative clerk as she had 22 performed it, assuming that she was not exposed to more than slight 23 emotional stress, such as that caused by her employer’s failure to 24 accommodate her limitations due to her back injury. 25 67.) 26 a phone clerk and a typist. 27 28 The ALJ determined that Plaintiff was capable of (AR 25.) Relying on (AR 33-34, 66- The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff was capable of working as (AR 33-34.) Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s conclusion that she could perform her past work was dependent on the assumption that the 2 1 employer would make an accommodation for her back injury. 2 Citing Social Security Ruling 00-1c and Cleveland v. Policy Management 3 Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 803 (1999), Plaintiff argues that the ALJ 4 was precluded from considering accommodations when determining if she 5 could work. 6 (AR 5-6.) (AR 6-8.) The Agency disagrees. It contends that the limitation on 7 accommodations only applies to work as it is regularly performed in 8 the workplace, not as actually performed by the claimant, citing 20 9 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(b)(2) and 416.960(b)(2). (Joint Stip. at 9-10.) 10 The Court need not and does not reach this issue because the ALJ 11 alternatively concluded that Plaintiff could work as a phone clerk or 12 typist and Plaintiff has not challenged that finding. 13 Thus, even were the Court to agree with Plaintiff that the ALJ had 14 improperly assumed that Plaintiff’s employer would accommodate her, 15 the Court would still uphold the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff 16 was not disabled because he found that there was other work that she 17 could do and she has not challenged that finding. 18 Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Although the ALJ’s step 19 four determination constitutes error, it is harmless error in light of 20 the ALJ’s alternative finding at step five.”); Robbins v. Soc. Sec. 21 Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding error that is 22 inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination is 23 harmless error).1 (AR 33-34.) See Tommasetti v. 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff also claims in passing that the ALJ did not do enough to help her at the administrative hearing, despite the fact that she did not have counsel. (Joint Stip. at 8.) But Plaintiff does not explain what the ALJ should have done differently and the Court is at a loss to come up with an explanation on its own. Thus, continue... 3 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION 3 4 For these reasons, the Agency’s decision that Plaintiff is not disabled is affirmed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: September 6, 2018 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\GRENOWICH, M 986\Memo Opinion.wpd 26 27 1 28 ...continue to the extent that this is a separate claim, it is denied. 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.
