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 his
application for a period of disability and Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II 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 an application for a period of disability and DIB,
alleging that he had been disabled since December 29, 2011.
Administrative Record (“AR”) 164-170.
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. Id. at 113-118, 120-125. On March
24, 2014, a hearing was held before administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) Kyle E. Andeer. Id. at 36- 71.
Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing, at which
he and a vocational expert testified. Id.
April 25, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding that
plaintiff was not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d)
of the Act. Id. at 18-31. The ALJ made the
following specific findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2016.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since December 29, 2011, the alleged onset date (20
CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following medically severe
impairments: status post cervical and lumbar trauma; obesity;
and depression/anxiety impairments secondary to pain (20 CFR
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 and 404.1526).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that he claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) except with opportunity to alternate between
sitting and standing during the workday at will provided they
[sic] are not off task for more than ten percent of the
workday; limited to simple, routine tasks in a low stress
work environment, i.e., only occasional decision making or
judgment required and only occasional changes in the work
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565).
7. The claimant was born [in] 1975 and was 36 years old,
which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the
alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).
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 skills (See SSR 82-41
and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant number in the national economy that
the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569 and 404.1569(a)).
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from December 29, 2011, through
the date of ...