(SS) Quiralte v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIKA QUIRALTE, Case No. 1:19-cv-01547-HBK (SS) 12 Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO COMMISSIONER1 13 v. (Doc. No. 16) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Erika Quiralte (“Quiralte” or “Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 19 Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her application for 20 disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1). The matter is currently before 21 the Court on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted without oral argument. (Doc. Nos. 16, 18- 22 19). For the reasons stated herein, the Court orders this matter REMANDED for further 23 administrative proceedings on Plaintiff’s first ground of assigned error only. 24 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 25 On February 13, 2015, Quiralte protectively filed a Title II application for disability and 26 disability insurance benefits. (AR 223-224). Quiralte followed with an application for 27 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). 28 (Doc. No. 1 supplemental security income under Title XVI on February 19, 2015. (AR 225-32). Quiralte’s 2 applications were initially denied on September 11, 2015 and denied upon reconsideration on 3 February 23, 2016. (AR 137, 146). Quiralte then requested and received a hearing before 4 Administrative Law Judge Matilda Surh (“the ALJ”) on May 14, 2018 where Quiralte appeared. 5 (AR 38-51). However, before her substantive testimony was taken, Quiralte opted to postpone the 6 hearing until she could retain counsel. (Id). Quiralte reappeared and testified before the ALJ on 7 September 27, 2018 represented by counsel. (AR 52-78). On October 24, 2018, the ALJ issued 8 her decision finding Quiralte not disabled. (AR 13-29). The Appeals Council denied Quiralte’s 9 request for review on August 26, 2019. (AR 1-9). Quiralte thus exhausted her administrative 10 remedies. Quiralte filed the present appeal before this Court on October 30, 2019. (Doc. No. 1). 11 A. Hearing Testimony 12 Quiralte initially appeared before the ALJ on May 14, 2018 but postponed her testimony 13 until she could retain counsel. (AR 38-51). On September 27, 2018, accompanied by counsel 14 Quiralte reappeared and testified. (AR 53-74). Quiralte affirmed she was a high school graduate 15 and that she held a certificate as a medical office specialist. (AR 56). She detailed how she lives 16 with her three adolescent children at her parent’s home and relies on their assistance and 17 government welfare to subsist. (AR 56, 60-61). In her previous job as a grocery store assistant 18 manager, Quiralte oversaw other employees, paid bills and occasionally lifted 15-20 pounds.2 (AR 19 57, 59). When Quiralte was a teenager she also worked in retail sales. (AR 58). She also briefly 20 worked as a receptionist in 2016. (AR 58). Quiralte quit the receptionist job and has not worked 21 since because being around others makes her feel like “she can’t breathe.” (AR 59). Fits of anxiety 22 and dizziness often debilitate Quiralte to the point where she “cannot function” and take care of her 23 kids. (AR 59-60). During these episodes Quiralte takes Ativan which calms her down for 24 approximately 30 minutes. (AR 61). She usually feels fine afterwards but once or twice a week 25 the anxiety and dizziness return and Quiralte must lay in bed until it passes. (AR 63). Her dizziness 26 makes her prone to fainting and she previously has gone to the emergency room following falls. 27 28 2 Quiralte’s testimony does not specify when she worked at the grocery store or for how long. 1 (AR 67). She has responded by taking daily prescribed Paxil for three months but has yet to 2 experience any improvement. (AR 61-62). Quiralte also twice attended therapy but didn’t enjoy 3 it. (AR 62). 4 Quiralte also testified that she regularly suffers from crippling migraines which can last for 5 one to two weeks. (AR 67-72). Botox has been intermittently effective at preventing them and she 6 has unspecified “emergency” medication to minimize the pain when they do occur. (AR 68-69). 7 However, the migraines are so debilitating that Quiralte vomits, and although she still takes her 8 kids to school when necessary, most of her time during these migraine episodes she remains in a 9 dark room to avoid light. (AR 70-72). Doctors have run MRIs and other examinations on Quiralte 10 but have yet to identify the cause of the migraines. (AR 71). 11 Around the house, Quiralte often does laundry, cleans, cooks and helps her children get 12 ready for school without feeling ill. (AR 63, 65-67). Approximately every other day, however, she 13 cannot complete any of those tasks due to severe anxiety and dizziness. (AR 66-67). And when 14 she goes to the grocery store, the mall or to other settings where large groups gather, her symptoms 15 regularly return. (AR 63-64). Quiralte drives when necessary but tries to go to the grocery store 16 early in the morning to avoid crowds. (AR 64). She also walks two blocks to her children’s school 17 to attend events but does not linger there longer than needed. (Id). For fun Quiralte’s family goes 18 to the park but she avoids more confined locales like movie theaters. (AR 65-66). 19 The vocational expert Robin Scher (“Scher”) testified following Quiralte. (AR 74-77). 20 Scher assessed Quiralte’s sales position as “light strength level with an SVP of 3” and grocery 21 manager job as “light strength level with an SVP of 6.” (AR 74). When presented with 22 hypotheticals meant to mirror Quiralte’s capabilities, Scher assessed the hypothetical individual 23 could not perform Quiralte’s previous positions due to the required public interaction. (AR 74-75). 24 However, Scher assessed the hypothetical individual could work as a motor vehicle assembler, a 25 medium strength level job with an SVP of 2 with approximately 330,000 jobs nationwide. (Id). 26 The hypothetical individual could likewise work as a cleaner, a medium strength level job with an 27 SVP of 1 with 110,000 nationwide positions, or as a photocopying machine operator, a light 28 strength level job with an SVP of 2 with 55,000 positions nationally. (AR 75). However, should 1 the hypothetical individual require daily scheduled and unscheduled breaks, and miss work at least 2 once a month, Scher testified “they probably wouldn’t be able to maintain employment.” (AR 75- 3 76). Being off task twenty percent of the day would also likely preclude employment. (AR 76- 4 77). 5 B. ALJ Findings 6 The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 7 • Quiralte met the Social Security Act’s insured status requirements through September 30, 8 2019. (AR 18). 9 • Quiralte has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of June 10 10, 2014. (AR 18). 11 • Quiralte’s anxiety and migraines are severe impairments. (AR 18-19). 12 • Quiralte’s impairments, individually or combined, did not meet or medically equal the 13 severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404 Subpart P Appendix 1. (AR 14 19-22). 15 • Quiralte possessed the residual functional capacity to perform “a full range of work at all 16 exertional levels” and Quiralte can “understand, remember and carry out very short and 17 simple instructions; can be punctual, maintain attendance and perform activities within a 18 schedule; can sustain ordinary routines without supervision; can work in coordination with 19 or proximity to others without being distracted by them; and can have occasional public 20 contact.” (AR 22-27). 21 • Quiralte is unable to perform any past relevant work. (AR 27). 22 • Quiralte was born August 24, 1982, making her a “younger individual.” She can speak 23 English and is a high school graduate. (AR 27-28). 24 • Quiralte is not disabled regardless of her skills’ transferability. (AR 28). 25 • The national economy contains significant numbers of jobs Quiralte can perform. (AR 28). 26 • Quiralte was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act on the alleged onset date of 27 June 10, 2014. (AR 29). 28 /// 1 II. APPLICABLE LAW 2 A claimant may seek judicial review of any final decision of the Commissioner of Social 3 Security following a denial of benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court reviews the 4 Commissioner’s final decision under the substantial evidence standard; the decision will be 5 disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. See 42 6 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by 7 substantial evidence, shall be conclusive”); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); 8 Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). “Substantial evidence is such relevant 9 evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Webb v. 10 Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005). “‘Substantial evidence’ means ‘more than a 11 scintilla,’ but ‘less than a preponderance.’” Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1279 (quoting Richardson v. 12 Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) and Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th 13 Cir. 1975)) (internal citations omitted). “The court will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when the 14 evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 15 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). But the court must “consider the record as a whole, weighing both 16 evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the Secretary’s conclusion.” Tackett, 180 17 F.3d a 1098 (citations omitted). The court “may only consider the reasons provided by the ALJ in 18 the disability determination and ‘may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not 19 rely.’” Luther v. Berryhill, 891 F. 3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Garrison v. Colvin, 759 20 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014)). “[T]he court will not reverse an ALJ’s decision for harmless 21 error, which exists when it is clear from the record that the ALJ’s error was inconsequential to the 22 ultimate nondisability determination.” Tommasetti, 533 F.2d at 1038. And it is not this Court’s 23 function to second guess the ALJ’s conclusions and substitute the Court’s judgment for the 24 ALJ’s. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Where evidence is 25 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be 26 upheld.”). 27 /// 28 /// 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 Quiralte identifies two grounds on appeal: 3 (1) the ALJ improperly discounted Quiralte’s testimony regarding her migraines and 4 other subjective symptoms; and 5 (2) the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion testimony of third-party witness Miguel 6 Samano. (Doc. No. 16 at 15-21). 7 A. The ALJ’s Assessment of Quiralte’s Migraines and Other Subjective Symptoms 8 Quiralte argues the ALJ improperly rejecting her testimony, resulting in an RFC that 9 inadequately accounted for her migraines. (Doc. No. 16 at 15-17). The ALJ determined Quiralte’s 10 migraines were a severe impairment that “significantly limit[ed] the claimants ability to perform 11 basic work activities.” (AR 18). However, the ALJ concluded Quiralte’s testimony about their 12 severity was not “entirely consistent with the medical evidence” on the basis that Botox treatments 13 reduced her headaches severity, duration, and frequency, with their frequency falling from five to 14 three times a week. (AR 23). 15 After careful consideration of the evidence, I find that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected 16 to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of these 17 symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this 18 decision. 19 A September 18, 2014 record contained assessments of headache and syncope (Exhibit 5F, page 54). In addition, a May 29, 2018 record 20 contained diagnoses of chronic migraine, vertigo, bilateral occipital neuralgia, and migraine with vertigo (Exhibit 19F, page 42). Further, 21 the May 29, 2018 record indicated that the claimant had botox injections, which helped and reduced headaches from 5 to 3 days a 22 week and reduced the severity of the headaches (Exhibit 19F, page 41). Also, a July 16, 2018 record indicated the claimant had Botox 23 treatment for migraines, and the claimant reported a good overall benefit, including decreased frequency, severity, and duration of 24 headaches. (Exhibit 19F, page 52) 25 (AR 23). An ALJ employs a two-step analysis to determine whether to credit a claimant’s 26 “testimony regarding subjective pain.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035–36 (9th Cir. 27 2007). First, the ALJ assesses “whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of 28 an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other 1 symptoms alleged.” (Id.) (internal quotations omitted). If this test is met, “and there is no 2 evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject the claimant's testimony about the severity of her 3 symptoms only by offering specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” (Id.) (internal 4 quotations omitted).3 Because the ALJ determined Quiralte’s migraines were a severe 5 impairment, and did not find Quiralte was malingering, the Court must consider whether the ALJ 6 offered clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence to discredit Quiralte’s 7 subjective testimony. 8 1. Whether Quiralte’s Testimony Was Consistent With Medical Records 9 The ALJ discounted Quiralte’s testimony because her “statements concerning the intensity 10 persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical 11 evidence and other evidence in the record.” (AR 23). Quiralte described at length her migraine’s 12 crippling impact on her life. (AR 68-72). When present, the migraines often last all day and persist 13 for weeks. (AR 70-71). During her migraines, Quiralte spends most of her time in dark rooms, 14 does not drive and experiences constant pain and nausea to the point of vomiting. (AR 70-72). 15 Quiralte takes “emergency” medication to alleviate her symptoms but it only helps “a tiny little 16 bit.” (AR 71). Despite the limitations posed by her migraines Quiralte manages to walk her kids 17 to school because she has no other alternative. (Id). Quiralte’s testimony is consistent with her 18 medical records, which demonstrate she repeatedly sought treatment for chronic, severe migraines. 19 (AR 586, 626, 1025, 1299). 20 The ALJ acknowledged Quiralte’s medical records demonstrate chronic migraines. (AR 21 23). However, she assessed that Botox injections “helped” and reduced Quiralte’s weekly 22 headaches from approximately five to three. (Id). She further cited to the medical records relaying 23 the Botox treatment had reduced the migraines duration and severity. (Id). 24 While the medical records relied on by the ALJ indicate improvements in Quiralte’s 25 migraines, the same records nonetheless demonstrate her migraines remained severe. Quiralte 26 began taking Botox in May 2015. (AR 1299). In September 2016, Quiralte reported to her doctor 27 28 3 The Court notes the Commissioner’s objection to this standard for the record. Doc. No. 18 at 7, fn. 2. 1 that her headaches had worsened since she began taking Botox. (Id.). When Quiralte reported in 2 July 2018 that her migraines had subsided from five days per week to three, her doctor still assessed 3 that she suffered from chronic migraines. (AR 1328, 1330). This report is consistent with 4 Quiralte’s testimony before the ALJ in September 2018, where she acknowledged that Botox had 5 improved her migraines but that they nonetheless remained frequent and debilitating. (AR 68-72). 6 The ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Quiralte’s subjective 7 testimony. The ALJ cited to the medical records which indicate that, despite Botox injections 8 improving her condition, Quiralte continued to experience chronic migraines. (AR 23). The ALJ 9 also cited to medical records where Quiralte presented without a migraine, and other aspects of her 10 health were either unremarkable or good. (AR 24). But “[o]ccasional symptom-free periods ... are 11 not inconsistent with disability.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 833 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth 12 Circuit previously found an ALJ failed to provide substantial evidence to reject a claimant’s 13 testimony where their “migraines subsided after taking medication” because “the record as a whole 14 shows [the migraines] were not well controlled.” Costa v. Berryhill, 700 F. App'x 651, 653 (9th 15 Cir. 2017). Here, similar to Costa, the record reflects Quiralte’s symptoms ebbed and flowed but 16 also show her migraines recurred within a month-and-a-half and then become frequent and lasted 17 for “a week or two.” (AR 68-72). The ALJ pointed to isolated evidence indicating the migraines 18 were mild at times despite other parts of the record indicating the migraines remained severe. 19 The records and Quiralte’s testimony instead appear to be largely in sync. The Court finds the ALJ 20 finding that Quiralte’s migraines were not as severe or as persistent as Quiralte testified is not 21 supported by substantial evidence. 22 2. Whether Quiralte’s Activities Were Inconsistent With Her Testimony 23 Quiralte next assigns error to the ALJ for concluding her daily activities contradicted her 24 subjective testimony. (Doc. No. 16 at 18). The ALJ cited Quiralte’s undertaking of childcare and 25 personal care, her ability to run errands and pay bills, and her ability to socialize, attend events, 26 and walk to school and the park as evidence Quiralte is not “as limited as alleged.” (AR 24). 27 The claimant’s reported activities also do not suggest that she is as limited as alleged. For example, in an April 27, 2015 Function 28 Report, the claimant reported that she takes care of others; has no 1 problem with personal care (such as dressing, bathing, feeding herself, or using the toilet); prepares her own meals; drives; shops in 2 stores; and is able to count change (Exhibit 4E, pages 6-8); Also, a July 11, 2015 psychological consultative examination report 3 indicated that the claimant can take care of self-dressing, self- bathing, and personal hygiene; is able to pay bills and handle cash 4 appropriately; is able to go out alone; has reported good relationships with family and friends; and drives (Exhibit 9F, page 6). The 5 claimant also testified that she goes to school events, goes to the grocery store, gets her kids ready for school, walks her kid to school, 6 cleans, and goes to the park (Hearing Testimony). 7 (AR 24). Quiralte’s testimony is clear that she is capable of completing some tasks when not 8 suffering from migraines, but when she experiences a migraine her abilities rapidly decline. (AR 9 66-72). Even when not suffering from a migraine, Quiralte testified she is unable to complete 10 these tasks every other day due to severe anxiety and dizziness. (AR 66-67). She then relies on 11 her father to carry out these tasks. (AR 67). Even when in good health, Quiralte takes steps to 12 minimize the chances of experiencing health episodes, such as avoiding crowded places and 13 going to public places like grocery stores only when they will be least busy, such as the early 14 morning. (AR 63-66). Quiralte’s claimed symptoms are largely consistent with her activities – 15 she undertook routine household tasks when in good health but relied on others to complete these 16 tasks when suffering from migraines and her anxiety. 17 It is well established a claimant “need not be completely incapacitated to receive 18 benefits.” Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). And the ability to irregularly 19 accomplish daily tasks does not necessarily equate with an ability to work. Garrison v. Colvin, 20 759 F.3d 995, 1016 (9th Cir. 2014). Further, an ALJ must “identify specific symptom testimony” 21 they “found to be inconsistent with [the claimant’s] reported activities of daily living.” Ross v. 22 Berryhill, 711 F. App'x 384, 386 (9th Cir. 2017); Drake v. Saul, 805 F. App'x 467, 469 (9th Cir. 23 2020). 24 The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons based upon substantial evidence for 25 rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective testimony concerning her mental impairments, i.e. anxiety. (AR 26 19-22, 23-24). The Court thus limits its review to Plaintiff’s testimony concerning her limitations 27 due to her migraines and finds error. An ALJ’s conclusions are entitled to deference if they are 28 1 premised on a rational interpretation. Burch, 400 F.3d at 679. The ALJ found Quiralte’s reported 2 activities contradicted her symptoms but failed to identify any “specific symptom testimony” to 3 which Quiralte testified that those activities contradicted. (AR 24). The ALJ therefore has not 4 met the threshold under Ross to discredit Quiralte’s subjective symptoms because of her daily 5 activities. By failing to cite specific testimony, which was discredited by Quiralte’s activities, 6 activities which were largely consistent with her testimony that her symptoms intensity varied, 7 the ALJ is not entitled to such deference. The ALJ has therefore failed to make the proper 8 showing to discount Quiralte’s testimony concerning her migraines on the basis it was 9 contradicted by her daily activities. 10 3. The ALJ’s Errors Regarding the Migraines Was Not Harmless 11 The reasons cited by the ALJ for discrediting Quiralte’s testimony were not clear and 12 convincing and supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ therefore improperly rejected 13 Quiralte’s subjective testimony concerning her migraines. 14 Upon concluding an ALJ has erred, the court assesses whether that error was “harmless.” 15 Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006). An ALJ’s error is harmless if it 16 “was clear from the record that an ALJ's error was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability 17 determination.” Carmickle v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) 18 (internal quotations omitted). 19 The rejection of Quiralte’s testimony was not harmless. Quiralte testified that she regularly 20 suffers from crippling migraines which can last for one to two weeks. (AR 67-72). Had that 21 testimony been credited, the ALJ may have concluded Quiralte’s migraines precluded her from 22 working. Scher, the vocational expert, testified that if an individual with an RFC like Quiralte were 23 to miss more than one day a month for work, or were to need daily scheduled and unscheduled 24 breaks, it is unlikely that individual could remained employed. (AR 75-77). Scher’s assessment 25 raises the question whether Quiralte’s migraines would cause her to miss at least one day of work 26 per month or force her to take scheduled or unscheduled breaks. This question, unaddressed by the 27 ALJ when calculating Quiralte’s RFC, is critical to determining whether Quiralte is eligible for 28 1 benefits.4 The Court therefore remands this matter to the ALJ to either credit Quiralte’s testimony 2 as true or to provide clear and convincing reasons that her testimony concerning her migraines 3 should be discredited. 4 B. The ALJ’s Assessment of Miguel Samano 5 Quiralte argues the ALJ erred by “failing to explain how” the assessment of Quiralte’s 6 boyfriend, Miguel Samano (“Samano”) “was considered or explain why identified limitations were 7 rejected.” (Doc. No. 18 at 19-20). The Administrative Record includes Samano’s witness 8 statement in which he attests that he spent upwards of 8 hours daily with Quiralte and echoes the 9 limitations to which Quiralte testified. (AR 289-295). Addressing Samano’s written statement, the 10 ALJ assigned it “some weight” concerning his direct observation of Quiralte’s activities but 11 otherwise gave it “little weight” because Samano is not a medical source and his because his 12 statement lacked specificity regarding how long Quiralte could walk. (AR 27). 13 I also considered the statements of the claimant’s boyfriend, Miguel Samano, contained in an April 27, 2015 Third Party Function Report 14 (Exhibit 5E). Mr. Samano opined that the claimant’s condition affects her ability to stand and walk (Exhibit 5E, page 10). I assign 15 little weight to the opinions of Mr. Samano regarding the claimant’s functional limitations, as the record does not indicated [sic] that Mr. 16 Samano is an acceptable medical source qualified to assess functional limitations. Additionally, Mr. Samano did not specify 17 how long the claimant can stand (Exhibit 5E, page 10). Some weight, though, is given to the statements of Mr. Samano regarding the 18 claimant’s actual activities, to the extent those statements are based on firsthand observations of the claimant. 19 (AR 27) (emphasis added). “[L]ay witness testimony concerning a claimant's ability to work” 20 must be considered by an ALJ in determining whether the claimant is disabled. Stout v. Comm'r, 21 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.2006). An ALJ must provide “germane” reasons for discounting a 22 witness statement. Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010). 23 Providing a statement limited weight solely because it comes from a lay source is not germane. 24 Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). However, a statement can be discounted if it 25 provides a “vague” description of the claimant’s limitations. Kendall v. Saul, 2021 WL 736268, 26 at *18 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2021). 27 4 The ALJ’s decision does not discuss Scher’s testimony and thus does not assign it any weight. Quiralte’s brief 28 seeking remand does not argue that this omission warrants remand. 1 The ALJ did not disregard Samano’s statement but assigned it “little weight” when 2 | considering Plaintiff’s functional limitations. According to Samano, Quiralte cannot walk “too 3 | far” and often gets dizzy when walking or standing. (AR 294.) How long Quiralte can walk and 4 | stand is relevant to developing her RFC and determining what jobs, if any, she can perform. 5 | Contending Quiralte cannot walk “too far” provides the ALJ little guidance because “far” is 6 || entirely subjective. In finding Samano’s testimony to be vague, the ALJ provided a germane 7 | reason to discount it. The Court finds the ALJ provided sufficient reasons germane for giving 8 | Samano’s statement “limited weight.” Remand is therefore unwarranted on this basis. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 1. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g), the Court REVERSES the 11 Commissioner’s decision and REMANDS this case back to the Commissioner of Social 12 Security for further proceedings consistent with this Order. 13 2. The Clerk shall terminate any motions and deadline and close this case. 14 1S Dated: _ October 7, 2021 oe Zh. Sareh Zackte 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12