83 F. Supp. 3d 881
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Allino applied for SSDI and SSI alleging disability from January 2008 due to morbid obesity, chronic lumbar back pain (annular tear), diabetes, depression/learning disorder, numbness in legs/feet, and sleep apnea.
- ALJ found plaintiff met steps 1–4, assigned an RFC for sedentary work with position changes every 30 minutes, and relied on a vocational expert (VE) to identify two sedentary jobs plaintiff could perform (printed circuit board assembler; printed circuit layout taper).
- VE testified approximately 1,600 U.S. jobs for each position, with roughly 150–200 in California, yielding about 350 state jobs and ~3,200 national jobs combined for plaintiff.
- ALJ denied benefits at step five, concluding a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy; Appeals Council denied review.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment asking for reversal and payment of benefits; Commissioner moved to affirm. District court reviewed whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that a "significant number" of jobs exist.
- Court concluded 350 jobs in California and ~3,200 national jobs are not "significant" under Ninth Circuit precedent, reversed the ALJ, and remanded for an immediate award of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "significant number" of jobs exist that plaintiff can perform at step five | 350 state jobs and ~3,200 national jobs are insufficient; ALJ erred | The ALJ properly credited VE testimony; ALJ’s factual determination should stand | Held for plaintiff: 350 state / ~3,200 national jobs are not significant; ALJ’s step-five finding unsupported by substantial evidence |
| Proper geographic "region" for job counts | Region may be statewide, but job distribution matters; ALJ failed to show jobs were not isolated | ALJ permissibly treated California as the region based on VE testimony | Court treated California as an allowable region but held 350 statewide jobs still not significant |
| Whether remand or immediate benefits is appropriate after error | Benefits should be awarded because no outstanding issues remain and record shows disability | Agency discretion supports remand for further proceedings | Court awarded benefits, finding no material factual issues left and that claimant is disabled |
| Reliance on comparative precedent to assess "significance" | Case comparisons show 350/3,200 fall below numbers deemed significant in Ninth Circuit | Significance is a factual ALJ determination not bound by rigid numerical rules | Court used Ninth Circuit and district-court precedents to conclude the numbers are not significant |
Key Cases Cited
- Gutierrez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2014) (statewide job counts may be treated as the claimant's region when record shows jobs are not isolated)
- Beltran v. Astrue, 700 F.3d 386 (9th Cir. 2012) (comparison to other cases is instructive; certain low national job totals held insufficient)
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (award of benefits appropriate where no outstanding issues remain and record establishes disability)
- Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (numbers of jobs in region/state evaluated to determine significance)
- Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1986) (large regional job numbers can be significant)
- Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (high national job totals found sufficient at step five)