Lisa M. Rivas v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 8:2012cv02063 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. The Court concludes that the Agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free from material legal error. As such, the decision is affirmed.IT IS SO ORDERED. (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 LISA RIVAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) Acting Commissioner of the Social ) Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Case No. SA CV 12-2063-PJW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff s appeal of a decision by 19 Defendant Social Security Administration ( the Agency ), denying her 20 application for Disability Insurance benefits ( DIB ). 21 claims that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred when he found 22 that she could perform her past relevant work. 23 reasons, the Agency s decision is affirmed. 24 25 Plaintiff For the following II. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff applied for DIB on June 21, 2010, alleging that she had 26 been unable to work since April 16, 2009, due to a torn meniscus in 27 her right knee, left knee and back pain, diabetes, depression, 28 underactive thyroid, high cholesterol, migraines, and insomnia. 1 (Administrative Record ( AR ) 113-17, 140.) 2 initially denied her application, Plaintiff requested and was granted 3 a hearing before an ALJ. 4 appeared with counsel and testified at the hearing. 5 September 22, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. 6 19-28.) 7 review (AR 1-9), she commenced this action. 8 (AR 62-70.) On August 18, 2011, she (AR 32-57.) On (AR After the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff s request for III. 9 After the Agency DISCUSSION Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in determining at step four 10 that she could perform her past work as a secretary because she had 11 not performed that job in the last 15 years, as the regulations 12 require. 13 the following reasons, the Court disagrees. See 20 C.F.R. ยง 404.1560(b)(1). (Joint Stip. at 5-11.) For 14 In his decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the 15 functional capacity to do sedentary work, subject to the limitation 16 that she not perform inherently stressful work requiring high 17 production quotas, safety operations, or intensely close supervision. 18 (AR 25.) 19 had previously worked as a secretary, the ALJ determined that she was 20 not disabled because she could still perform that work. 21 52.) Relying on the vocational expert s testimony that Plaintiff (AR 28, 51- 22 Plaintiff argues that the vocational expert identified five 23 occupations as her past relevant work -bus driver, secretary, cashier, 24 customer service cargo agent, and office clerk -and that the only 25 secretarial work was at Hutton Development, where she worked from 1990 26 to 1992. 27 this job was performed more than 15 years ago, it does not qualify 28 under the regulations as past relevant work. (AR 47-48; Joint Stip. at 5-11.) 2 She contends that, because (Joint Stip. at 5-11.) 1 There is some support for this argument in the record. At the 2 hearing, the vocational expert asked Plaintiff when she worked as a 3 secretary. 4 worked in a medical office for Dr. Gooing between 2007 and 2008. 5 47, 48.) 6 was probably Hutton Development. 7 In response to a question from her attorney, Plaintiff testified that 8 her work with Dr. Gooing was as both a receptionist and a secretary, 9 and the vocational expert subsequently classified that work as more (AR 47.) At first, she replied that it was when she (AR Plaintiff then appeared to correct herself, adding, that I worked as a secretary. 10 of an office clerk, which would be light. 11 testimony were the only evidence in the record regarding Plaintiff s 12 work experience, the Court might be inclined to agree with her 13 position herein. 14 (AR 49, 50.) (AR 47.) If this However, it is not. In separate work history reports that Plaintiff submitted with 15 her DIB application, she stated that she worked between 1980 and 2008 16 as a secretary in a medical office. 17 expert referred to those statements when he asked her where she had 18 performed that work. 19 Dr. Gooing, Plaintiff testified that she worked as a secretary for 20 many years, without specifying the location of that work. 21 When her counsel asked her if she had worked as a secretary in a 22 medical office for almost 30 years, Plaintiff replied [w]ell, I was a 23 secretary for pretty much most of my life. 24 (AR 47.) (AR 141, 163.) The vocational After testifying that she worked for (AR 47.) (AR 49.) Thus, it appears that it was this testimony that the vocational 25 expert was relying on to classify Plaintiff s past work as a 26 secretary. 27 Plaintiff s own account of her work history and the vocational 28 expert s interpretation of that account that Plaintiff s past relevant (AR 48.) At a minimum, the ALJ was entitled to infer from 3 1 work (in the previous 15 years) included work as a secretary. As 2 such, his decision will not be disturbed. 3 Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding Agency s 4 findings must be affirmed if supported by inferences reasonably drawn 5 from the record, and if evidence exists to support more than one 6 rational interpretation ) (citation omitted); Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 7 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding ALJ is entitled to draw inferences 8 logically flowing from the evidence ) (citation omitted).1 See Batson v. Comm r, Soc. IV. CONCLUSION 9 10 For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Agency s findings 11 are supported by substantial evidence and are free from material legal 12 error. As such, the decision is affirmed. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: November 21, 2013. 15 16 PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 S:\PJW\Cases-Social Security\RIVAS, 2063\Memo_Opinion.wpd 25 26 27 28 1 To the extent that the record remains ambiguous regarding Plaintiff s work history as a secretary, the Court finds that any ambiguity was caused in large part by Plaintiff herself. Furthermore, Plaintiff s counsel was present throughout the hearing and could have resolved any potential ambiguity at that time. 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.
