Green v. Saul, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00058-BAM

SHONTRICE L. GREEN, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL,¹ Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00058-BAM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

March 13, 2020

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REVERSING AGENCY'S DENIAL OF BENEFITS AND ORDERING REMAND

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Shontrice L. Green ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her application for supplemental security income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe for findings and recommendations to the District Court.

Having considered the briefing and record in this matter, the Court finds the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not based on proper legal standards. Accordingly, this Court will recommend that the Commissioner'sdetermination be REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI alleging disability beginning November 1, 2009. AR 224-232.² Plaintiff's application was denied initially and on reconsideration and Plaintiff subsequently requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). AR 112-141, 158-173. ALJ Scot Septer held a hearing on October 5, 2017, and issued an order denying benefits on March 8, 2018. AR 15-64. Plaintiff sought review of the ALJ's decision, which the Appeals Council denied, making the ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final decision. AR 1-6, 212-216. This appeal followed.

Relevant Hearing Testimony

The ALJ held a hearing on October 5, 2017, in Fresno, California. Plaintiff appeared in person with her attorney, Michael Donaldson. Impartial Vocational Expert Stephen Schmidt also appeared. AR 34.

In response to questioning by the ALJ, Plaintiff testified that she lives in a house with her boyfriend and her children. When asked about her work history, Plaintiff testified that she previously worked as a housekeeper. She also worked as a packer for Foster Farms, which required her to package chickens, stand on her feet for a minimum of eight-to-nine hours, lift, bend, push boxes, paper trays, rotate, and to lift or carry an estimated twenty-five to forty-five pounds every two hours. Plaintiff testified that she stopped working as a packer for Foster Farms two weeks before the hearing because she was going to be terminated due to her inability to keep up with performance expectations. Plaintiff also provided living assistance and ran errands for a third-party individual for two hours per day every other day but testified that job was "getting ready to end" because she was unable to perform the duties. Plaintiff further testified that the highest grade she completed in school was eleventh grade. AR 42-48.

When asked about her daily activities, Plaintiff testified that her children usually do the cooking in their household although Plaintiff sometimes cooks Sunday dinner and helps her children.Plaintiff was the primary person who provided and cooked meals until approximately one year ago but testified that has changed over time because of her limitations with standing. Plaintiff further testified that her children clean and do the laundry and she has not done any of that work for a year due to her condition. Plaintiff grocery shops once a month using a motorized cart. Her son mostly drives for her because she has difficulty seeing and turning her head to the left, but she sometimes drives herself. AR 48-50.

With respect to her impairments, Plaintiff testified that she has sciatica and pain that radiates in her buttocks as well as her left leg and foot. She estimates that she can walk for two blocks before she must rest and can stand for fifteen minutes before she must sit and rest for fifteen-to-twenty minutes. When asked about her social activities, Plaintiff testified that she sometimes goes to the movies and shopping with her children. Her children are active in sports, but she experiences anxiety in crowds and does not attend their sports events. Plaintiff testified that she had difficulty with her coworkers while working at Foster Farms and would "get into it with them" and "curs[e] them" resulting in write-ups. She testified that she takes Klonopin, which helps with her anxiety until it wears off. Plaintiff also testified that her physical impairments worsened while working at Foster Farms because of strain from putting her head down and she would sometimes miss work. Plaintiff further testified that, during a typical day, she wakes up, washes, tries to go out and do some walking, and attends doctor appointments for herself or her children. She also reads and uses the internet. Plaintiff testified that the main issue that prevents her from working full-time is her degenerative disc disorder and bulging discs in her back. AR 50-54.

In response to questioning by her attorney, Plaintiff testified that she was absent from her work at Foster Farms for prolonged periods of time due to back issues and took three leaves of absence ranging from six-to-eight weeks each. She first started experiencing pain a year before getting her job at Foster Farms. Plaintiff further testified that she gets nervous around people and thinks they're out to get her and are talking about her. She also has issues one-on-one with supervisors and her nervousness is not limited to crowds of people. Plaintiff testified that her doctor told her not to lift more than ten pounds, she is not able to bend or stoop, and she has difficulty turning around. AR 55-56.

Following Plaintiff's testimony, the ALJ elicited testimony from the Vocational Expert ("VE") Stephen Schmidt. The VE testified that Plaintiff's work history included poultry dressing worker. The ALJ also asked the VE hypothetical questions. The ALJ asked the VE to assume an individual with the same age, education, and vocational background as Plaintiff. For the first hypothetical, the ALJ asked the VE to assume this hypothetical individual could perform work at the light exertional level, push and pull bilaterally with their upper extremities, occasionally climb ladders, ropes, scaffolds, ramps, and stairs, occasionally balance, crawl, crouch, kneel, and stoop, and could not work in jobs which require constant reading of fine print or frequent work with small objects. The VE testified that Plaintiff's past work would not be available but there would be other jobs available as a packer, cleaner, or cafeteria attendant. AR 57-59.

For the second hypothetical, the ALJ asked the VE to assume that the same individual in the first hypothetical would be limited to non-complex jobs requiring nothing more than simple, repetitive tasks and would be able to have frequent contact with coworkers and occasional contact with members of the general public. The VE testified that the same jobs identified in response to the first hypothetical would be available. AR 59-60.

For the third hypothetical, the ALJ asked the VE to assume that the individual in the second hypothetical would be limited to standing or walking for no more than four out of eight hours in an eight-hour workday. The VE testified that there would be no jobs available. AR 60.

Finally, Plaintiff's attorney asked the VE hypothetical questions. Plaintiff's attorney asked the VE to assume the same individual described in the ALJ's first hypothetical, except this individual would be off task twenty percent of the time due to medications and pain. The VE testified that there would be no work available. AR 61.

Medical Record

The relevant medical record was reviewed by the Court and will be referenced below as necessary to the Court's decision.

The ALJ's Decision

Using the Social Security Administration's five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act. AR 15-33. Specifically, theALJ found that Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful activity during the third quarter of 2016, the first quarter of 2017, and the third quarter of 2017. AR 18. However, there had been a continuous twelve-month period during which Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity and the remaining findings addressed the period that the Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity. AR 18. Further, the ALJ identified degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and obesity as severe impairments. AR 18. The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the 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 residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work, could lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, 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 ladders, ropes, scaffolds, ramps, and stairs, occasionally push and pull bilaterally with her upper extremities, occasionally balance, crawl, crouch, kneel and stoop, and should not work in jobs that require constant reading of fine print or frequent work with small objects. AR 21-26. With this RFC, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. AR 27. Plaintiff was classified as a younger individual age 18-49 on the date the application was filed, has limited education and is able to communicate in English, and transferability of job skills was not an issue in the case because Plaintiff's past relevant work was unskilled. AR 27. Considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ found that...