EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
In July 2014, Plaintiff Richard Pineda filed an application for disability insurance benefits. See AR 207 (application). His application was initially denied in November 2014, see AR 124 (notice of disapproved claims), and then upon reconsideration in July 2015. See AR 130 (notice of reconsideration). Mr. Pineda then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). See AR 136 (request for hearing). A hearing was held before ALJ Elizabeth Stevens Bentley in January 2017. See AR 39-70 (hearing transcript). Subsequently, in February 2017, ALJ Bentley issued her decision, concluding that Mr. Pineda was not disabled from March 25, 2014 (the alleged amended onset date) through the date of her decision. See AR 33 (ALJ decision). Mr. Pineda asked that the Appeals Council for the Social Security Administration review the ALJ's decision, see AR 205 (letter), but that request was denied, thus leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the agency. See AR 1 (notice of Appeals Council action). Mr. Pineda then initiated the instant action, challenging the ALJ's decision.
Mr. Pineda exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his claim of disability. This Court has jurisdiction to review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Mr. Pineda has moved for summary judgment, seeking a reversal of the Commissioner's. The Commissioner has cross-moved for summary judgment. Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, including but not limited to the administrative record, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby
When Mr. Pineda applied for benefits, he claimed that he suffered from, inter alia, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), angina, chest pain, and shortness of breath. See AR 124 (notice of disapproved claims). As noted above, ALJ Bentley rejected Mr. Pineda's claims for benefits, applying the five-step sequential evaluation process provided for by the relevant regulations.
Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2003).
See also AR 65 (hearing transcript) (ALJ posing hypothetical to vocational expert, with the hypothetical including the restriction that the individual "must avoid all exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and other pulmonary irritants").
In the instant case, the ALJ made the following rulings regarding the five steps.
At step one, the ALJ found that Mr. Pineda had not engaged in substantial gainful activity from March 25, 2014 (the alleged amended onset date) through June 30, 2015 (his date last insured). See AR 29 (ALJ decision).
At step two, the ALJ determined that Mr. Pineda had the following severe impairments: COPD and ischemic heart disease. See AR 29.
At step three, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Pineda did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of the one of the listed impairments in the regulations. See AR 29.
At step four, the ALJ first noted that Mr. Pineda "had the residual functional capacity to perform light work," except that he "can occasionally climb ramps and stairs" and can "never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds." AR 30. The ALJ added that Mr. Pineda "has unlimited ability to balance and stoop" and "can frequently kneel and crouch, and occasionally crawl." AR 30. Finally, the ALJ stated that Mr. Pineda "must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, heat or workplace hazards, and must not be exposed to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, or poor ventilation." AR 30. Based on this residual functional capacity or "RFC," the ALJ determined that Mr. Pineda could not "perform any past relevant work," more specifically, as a welder. AR 32.
Finally, at step five, the ALJ concluded that, based on the RFC, "there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that [Mr. Pineda] could have performed" — namely, cashier, fast food worker, and housekeeper. AR 32-33. The ALJ therefore concluded that Mr. Pineda was not disabled from the alleged amended onset date through the date last insured. See AR 33.
After a final decision on a claim for benefits by the Commissioner, the claimant may seek judicial review of that decision by a district court. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner's decision will be disturbed only if the ALJ has committed legal error or if the ALJ's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. See Stout v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) ("We will uphold the Commissioner's denial of benefits if the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and substantial evidence supports the decision."). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence — "more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance" — that a reasonable mind may accept to support a conclusion. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). A court evaluates "the record as a whole, . . . weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from the ALJ's conclusion" to determine if substantial evidence supports a finding. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th Cir. 2001). If the evidence supports "more than one rational interpretation," the Court must uphold the ALJ's decision. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2005).
In the instant case, Mr. Pineda makes only one argument. More specifically, he contends that, based on the ALJ's findings on his RFC, he could not have performed any of the jobs the ALJ identified at step five, i.e., cashier, fast food worker, and housekeeper. Mr. Pineda notes that, in discussing his RFC, the ALJ stated that he "must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, heat or workplace hazards, and must not be exposed to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, or poor ventilation." AR 30. According to Mr. Pineda, this meant that he could not have any exposure to any fumes, odors, dusts, and so forth. Mr. Pineda notes that the ALJ could have used "concentrated" or "extreme," as she did with exposure to cold, heat, or workplace hazards, but she did not. See Reply at 1 (noting that "[t]here were no qualifiers"). Mr. Pineda also takes note that, at the hearing, the ALJ asked the vocational expert to consider a hypothetical where an individual must, inter alia, "avoid all exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and other pulmonary irritants." AR 65 (hearing transcript) (emphasis added). And, according to Mr. Pineda, because he could not have any exposure to any fumes, odors, dusts, and so forth, there is no possibility that he could have performed any of the jobs identified by the ALJ, i.e., cashier, fast food worker, and housekeeper. Mr. Pineda emphasizes that, per SSR 85-15:
SSR 85-15 (emphasis added).
As an initial matter, the Court notes that, arguably, the ALJ did not intend such a restrictive RFC. Such a restrictive RFC — no exposure of any kind to any fumes, odors, dusts, and so forth — seems inconsistent with the bulk of the medical evidence of record as described in the ALJ's decision. See, e.g., AR 427 (report of Dr. Cayton from April 2013) (discussing pulmonary function study that was conducted on Mr. Pineda; acknowledging that "[m]echanics reveal reduction in FEV1 and forced vital capacity" but also noting that lung volume, diffusing capacity, and airway resistant were normal and there was only "mild small airway obstruction"); AR 388 (report of Dr. Cayton from March 2014) (discussing pulmonary function study that was conducted on Mr. Pineda; again acknowledging "reduced" forced vital capacity and FEV1 but adding that total lung capacity, diffusing capacity, and airway resistance were normal); AR 773, 777 (report of Dr. Levy from February 2015) (stating that "[c]urrent pulmonary function tests mild COPD/CRPD" and "[p]atient achieved 8 METs"; also stating that "[h]is current pulmonary function tests do not suggest any major impairment"); AR 523 (record of St. Mary's Medical Center, Pulmonary Function Lab, from October 2015) (stating that "[t]here is mild obstruction to airflow which may reflect variable effort," that "[p]eak flow improves with inhaled bronchodilator," that "FEV1 is 72% predicted," and that "[t]here is good response to inhaled bronchodilator"); AR 692 (record of Dr. Mitchell from October 2016) (noting that "[t]here is no wheezing," "[c]hest is clear to auscultation," and "[t]here are no rales or rhonchi noted").
Nevertheless, even assuming a restrictive RFC — in Mr. Pineda's favor — the Court still concludes that the Commissioner, and not Mr. Pineda is entitled to summary judgment.
Mr. Pineda's argument is predicated on the assertion that the jobs of cashier, fast food worker, and housekeeper all involve some level of exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, and so forth. However, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT") and the Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("SCO") do not describe any of those jobs as involving such exposure. See 1991 WL 671840 (DOT 211.462.010 cashier); 1991 WL 672682 (DOT 311.472-010 fast-foods worker); 1991 WL 672783 (DOT 323.687-014 cleaner, housekeeper).
Mr. Pineda protests that it defies reality to say that these jobs do not involve any exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, and so forth. He points out that, in a document available on the Social Security Administration ("SSA") website, there is the following text:
Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel ("OIDAP"), Content Model and Classification Recommendations for the Social Security Information System, Report to the Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter "OIDAP Report"), September 2009, available at https://www.ssa.gov/oidap/panel_documents.htm (Appendix F, Sub-Appendix A-106) (last visited December 6, 2018).
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the document containing the above language — although posted on the SSA website — was not authored by the SSA, nor even the OIDAP (a discretionary panel established by the Commissioner "to provide advice `on creating an occupational system tailored specifically for SSA's disability programs'"). OIDAP Report at 5, available at https://www.ssa.gov/oidap/Documents/FinalReportRecommendations.pdf (last visited December 6, 2018). Rather, the language above was contained in a comment submitted to an OIDAP subcommittee by the National Association of Disability Examiners ("NADE"). Furthermore, it appears that the criticism made by NADE — notably, many years ago in September 2009 — never resulted in any change in the SSA's approach toward or use of the DOT and SCO.
Nevertheless, even if the Court were to credit the NADE criticism, Mr. Pineda would not fare any better because, at best, the criticism puts into question whether Mr. Pineda could — with the restrictive RFC — perform the job of housekeeper. While it seems likely that a housekeeper would use cleaners, and it is even likely that the cleaners would produce some odors or fumes,
Contrary to what Mr. Pineda claims, the DOT does not state that a fast-foods worker does cleaning. Rather, the DOT states that one of the responsibilities of a fast-foods worker is to "maintain orderly eating or serving areas." 1991 WL 672682 (DOT 311.472-010 fast-foods worker). Nor it is otherwise obvious that a fast-foods worker necessarily or typically does cleaning. Mr. Pineda argues still that a fast-foods worker would be exposed to odors or fumes from "possibly working the deep fryer." Reply at 3; see also 1991 WL 672682 (DOT 311.472-010 fast-foods worker) (stating that "[m]ay cook or apportion french fries or perform other minor duties to prepare food, server customers, or maintain orderly eating or serving areas"). But presumably the ALJ's RFC was not so restrictive as to cover all odors; at the very least, it seems implausible that the RFC would cover odors emanating from food. Cf. SCO, Appendix D at D-2 (defining "atmospheric conditions" as "[e]xposure to such conditions as fumes, noxious odors, dusts, mists, gases, and poor ventilation, that affect the respiratory system, eyes, or the skin") (emphasis added).
Furthermore, even if Mr. Pineda were correct that he could not, with the ALJ's RFC determination, perform the job of a fast-foods worker, that still leaves the job of cashier. Mr. Pineda asserts that some cashiers — e.g., those working in parking lots and toll booths — are clearly exposed to odors and fumes. See Mot. at 6. But the vocational expert noted at the hearing before the ALJ that such cashiers only "represent[] about 10 percent of all the cashiering jobs." AR 68 (hearing transcript); see also AR 33 (ALJ decision) (noting that there are 850,000 cashier jobs nationally). This would still leave a large number of cashier positions that Mr. Pineda could perform. Mr. Pineda protests that cashiers have contact with the public and thus might be exposed to, e.g., "strong perfumes or body sprays." Reply at 3. But, as indicated above, this becomes a matter of speculation and, in any event, if the evidence supports "more than one rational interpretation," the Court must uphold the ALJ's decision. Burch, 400 F.3d at 680-81.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's step five analysis. The Court accordingly denies Mr. Pineda's motion for summary judgment and grants the Commissioner's.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter a final judgment in accordance with the above and close the file in the case.
This order disposes of Docket Nos. 13 and 14.
