United States District Court, E.D. California
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her
applications for a period of disability and Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI
of the Social Security Act. The parties have filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed
below, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is
granted, the Commissioner's motion is denied, and the
matter is remanded for further proceedings.
filed applications for a period of disability, DIB, and SSI,
alleging that she had been disabled since April 29, 2007.
Administrative Record (“AR”) 220-236. Her
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration.
Id. at 135-142, 146-150. On August 21, 2013, a
hearing was held before administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) L. Kalei Fong. Id. at 39-82.
Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing, at which
she and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified.
October 31, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding that
plaintiff was not disabled under sections 216(i), 223(d), and
1614(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Id. at 22-33. The ALJ made the
following specific findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through March 31, 2010. The claimant has
not established disability on or prior to March 31, 2010.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since April 29, 2007, the alleged onset date (20 CFR
404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
* * *
3. The claimant has the following severe impairment: anxiety
(20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
* * *
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526,
416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
* * *
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following nonexertional
limitations: due to her anxiety, she is limited to performing
simple repetitive tasks. She is able to frequently interact
with supervisors, occasionally interact with co-workers, and
minimally interact with the public. She needs to avoid jobs
that include hazards (e.g., heights and machinery). She is
able to maintain concentration and pace to perform simple
repetitive tasks. She needs to avoid any type of competitive
* * *
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(work performed in the past 15 years, performed long enough
to learn, and performed as substantial gainful activity) (20
CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
* * *
7. The claimant was born [in] 1966 and was 41 years old,
which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the
alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or
not the claimant has transferable job ...