Menefee-Arellano v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, No. 6:2010cv00027 - Document 23 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: Order and Opinion. Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. Signed on 04/05/2011 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (lg)

Download PDF
Menefee-Arellano v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration Doc. 23 1APR 0615:lOuSDC-ORE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Civ. No. 10-27-AA MICHELLE A. MENEFEE-ARELLANO, OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Soc Security, 1 Defendant. AIKEN, Chief Judge: Plaintiff br Act, 42 Commiss U.S.C. § r's insurance part s this action pursuant to the Social Secur 405(g) obtain judicial ew of 1 denial of her application for dis fits (DIB). s' and remanded to Upon review of the y the il record the decision of the Commissioner is reversed r r administrative proceedings. DISCUSSION Plainti 1 for DIB on May 27, 2005, alleging s lity OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com as of December 2002. Tr. 17. iff's application was initially and on reconsideration, and she subsequently appeared and law judge (ALJ). testified before an administrat 59, 411-56. On August favorable decision, f to April 7, 2006 activity. Tr. 31, 2007, Plaintiff s 17 30. ALJ further found that part r wo plaintiff's shad lity under the Act as of that date. the transferability of s ALJ's Tr. 29-30. conclusion rding and that iff should be found to or to April 7, 2006 and dis h birthday. the dence Ils is not supported by substanti transferable skills 6, 2004, her fi a after April 7, 2006 and contends in the record, issued had skills transferable to skills were not trans established ALJ plaintiff was not disabl t se the Tr. 48-50, 55­ lacked as of April Tr. 131 (reflecting date of April 6, 1954). In finding iff disabled after April 7, 2006, the ALJ relied on t cal-Vocational correlate a c 's age, education, previous work experience and skills, and res s of either P, App. complet where a ), Guidelines ional capacity (RFC) to or not disabled. 2. an ALJ may rs from rect a finding See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. accura tely represent suf which rely a on cla nonexertional gr 's if "they limitations," irments, such as pain or postural limitations, the grids merely serve as a framework 2 - OPINION AND ORDER and vocational testimony is required. 1094, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 1999). grids directs a accepted by the finding of Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d However, "where application of the disability, [Commissioner] ." that Cooper v . finding Sullivan, must 880 be F.2d 1152, 1157· (9th Cir. 1989). Based on plaintiff's age, education, and RFC limitation to sedentary work, plaintiff is considered disabled under the grids on or after April 6, 2004 (when plaintiff turned fifty years old) if she lacked skills that were transferable to a range of other work. 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, § 201.14. The ALJ found that plaintiff's skills were transferable prior to April 7, 2006 but not after that date. Tr. 29. However, the ALJ did not issue findings or explain why plaintiff's skills were transferable prior to April 7, 2006 or whether and to what extent plaintiff's age and her RFC affected the date on which her skills ceased to be transferable. Tr. 29-30. Thus, I find that the ALJ erred. Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ always has duty to make factual findings to support conclusions). The Commissioner contends that any error by the ALJ is harmless, given testimony by the vocational expert that plaintiff's past relevant work required skills that could be transferred to other work. Tr. 451. Regardless, the vocational expert did not address the transferability of skills in the context of plaintiff's age and RFC or the time frame 3 - OPINION AND ORDER in which plaintiff's skills were y, I cannot find that the ALJ's failure trans to rna i entitl c to turn, when plaintiff could if found have to lacked Ils prior to April 7 , 2006. s In benefits additional trans is harmless, findings plaintiff argues that the ALJ's conc t iff lacked transferable skills after April 7, 2006, coupl lack of findings or evidence to support trans ior to April 7, 2006, warrants the finding by s lity s court iff should be found disabled under the that 6, 2004. a 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, fi ng iate for and assessment this court to of 201.14. § plaintiff's make, given as of s s fi by ALJ, Carmickl e, 533 F. 3d at are not by test the s Ils at s court, It is the role of the ALJ, not findings. However, Ils vocational expert that Dlaintiff possessed trans some point. 1 to make 1167 "the court has no basis on which to ew the 's decision"). Accordingly, I find that outstanding issues must be resolved re a determination of disability prior to , and the case is remanded for further 211 F. 3d 1172, 1178 (9th C transfe c f lity of plaintiff's skills and to perform other work activity prior to 4 - OPINION AND ORDER s. 2000) . will review the record and make 1 7, 2006 can be Harman v. On remand, the ALJ regarding the ility of plaintiff il 7, 2006. CONCLUSION The ALJ's finding that plaintiff was not disabled under the Act prior to April 7, 2006 is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. REVERSED and Accordingly, REMANDED for the decision of the Commissioner is further administrative consistent with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ()~ay of April, 2011. Ann Aiken United States District Judge 5 - OPINION AND ORDER proceedings

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.