(SS) Green v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHONTRICE L. GREEN, No. 1:19-cv-00058-NONE-BAM 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REVERSING 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of AGENCY’S DENIAL OF BENEFITS AND Social Security, ORDERING REMAND 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 30) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Shontrice L. Green filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of 19 the Commissioner of Social Security1 (“Commissioner”) denying her application for 20 supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The matter 21 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 22 Rule 302. 23 On March 13, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 24 recommending that the Commissioner’s determination be reversed and the action be remanded 25 for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 30.) The findings and recommendations were 26 27 1 Andrew M. Saul is now the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Andrew M. Saul is substituted for Acting Commissioner Nancy 28 A. Berryhill as the defendant in this suit. 1 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 2 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. On March 3 27, 2020, the Commissioner timely filed objections. (Doc. No. 31.) Plaintiff did not file a 4 response to the Commissioner’s objections. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 6 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the 7 Commissioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 8 the record and by proper analysis. 9 The findings and recommendations succinctly summarized the underlying decision by the 10 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) as follows: 11 The ALJ found that Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful activity during the third quarter of 2016, the first quarter of 2017, and the 12 third quarter of 2017. AR 18. However, there had been a continuous twelve-month period during which Plaintiff did not engage in 13 substantial gainful activity and the remaining findings addressed the period that the Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity. 14 AR 18. Further, the ALJ identified degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and obesity as severe impairments. AR 18. The ALJ 15 then determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the 16 severity of one of the listed impairments. AR 20-21. Based on a review of the entire record, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the 17 residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work, could lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, 18 stand and/or walk for up to six hours in an eight-hour workday, sit for up to six hours in an eight-hour workday, occasionally climb 19 ladders, ropes, scaffolds, ramps, and stairs, occasionally push and pull bilaterally with her upper extremities, occasionally balance, 20 crawl, crouch, kneel and stoop, and should not work in jobs that require constant reading of fine print or frequent work with small 21 objects. AR 21-26. With this RFC, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. AR 27. Plaintiff was 22 classified as a younger individual age 18-49 on the date the application was filed, has limited education and is able to 23 communicate in English, and transferability of job skills was not an issue in the case because Plaintiff’s past relevant work was unskilled. 24 AR 27. Considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ found that there are jobs that exist in significant 25 numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. AR 27-28. The ALJ therefore concluded that Plaintiff was not under a 26 disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since May 6, 2015, the date the application was filed. AR 28-29. 27 28 (Doc. No. 30 at 5.) 1 The findings and recommendations reasoned that remand for further findings was 2 appropriate as to one matter. Specifically, treating physician Dr. Bryan indicated in a March 21, 3 2017 opinion that plaintiff should avoid bending and twisting of her low back. While the ALJ 4 indicated that he incorporated this opinion into the RFC finding, the magistrate judge correctly 5 concluded that the RFC finding did not address the limitations on bending and twisting. (Doc. 6 No. 30 at 10.) 7 In his objections, the Commissioner first argues that the ALJ in fact did incorporate Dr. 8 Bryan’s March 21, 2017 opinion that plaintiff should avoid bending or twisting her lower back 9 into the RFC determination by finding that plaintiff was limited to “occasional stooping (bending 10 at the waist).” (Doc. No. 31 at 3.) However, this argument was previously advanced in the 11 Commissioner’s responsive brief before the magistrate judge, and the Commissioner cites no 12 authority for the proposition that occasional stooping is synonymous with a finding that a 13 claimant should avoid bending or twisting of the lower back. The ALJ was required to explain 14 how the limitations described in Dr. Bryan’s March 21, 2017 opinion, which the ALJ credited, 15 related to the RFC determination. See Dela Cruz v. Colvin, 2014 WL 2865076, *2-3 (C.D. Cal. 16 2014); see also Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014) 17 (“Although the ALJ's analysis need not be extensive, the ALJ must provide some reasoning in 18 order for us to meaningfully determine whether the ALJ’s conclusions were supported by 19 substantial evidence.”). 20 The Commissioner also argues that the “ALJ reasonably found Dr. Bryan did not provide 21 clinical findings to support any further restriction than assessed by the ALJ[.]” (Doc. No. 31.) 22 However, the ALJ did not make such a finding with respect to Dr. Bryan’s March 21, 2017 23 opinion. As the magistrate judge noted, the ALJ instead credited this opinion and expressly stated 24 that he incorporated limitations on bending and twisting of the lower back into the RFC finding, 25 yet the RFC finding clearly did not include any limitations on bending and twisting of the lower 26 back. (Doc. No. 30 at 10.) 27 Finally, the Commissioner argues that any error was harmless because plaintiff was not 28 precluded from performing other work. (Doc. No. 31 at 4.) In support of this argument, the wOAOe £6.40 YOU YO MEARE RAINE □□□ Ve POO Vee POY IT 1 | Commissioner relies entirely on the contention that the occupations of packer, cleaner, and 2 | cafeteria attendant require only occasional or no stooping. Ud.) The Commissioner’s argument 3 | again assumes, without citation to controlling authority, that stooping is synonymous with 4 | avoiding bending or twisting of the lower back. Because the ALJ did not include limitations on 5 | bending and twisting of the lower back or otherwise explain how those limitations were 6 || adequately encompassed in the RFC determination, the court cannot conclude that any error was 7 | “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination” and therefore harmless. Molina v. 8 | Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 13, 2020 (Doc. No. 30), are 11 ADOPTED IN FULL; and 12 2. Plaintiffs appeal of the decision of the Commissioner is GRANTED and the 13 action is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the 14 findings and recommendations. 15 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ | Dated: _ June 29, 2020 DL A Drage 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28