Martina Garcia Garduno v. Nancy A. Berryhill, 2:17-cv-04317

Plaintiff Martina Garcia Garduno applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning October 12, 2012; applications were denied and an ALJ hearing was held October 9, 2015.
ALJ found severe impairments of lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease, assessed an RFC for light work with other limitations, and concluded Plaintiff could perform past work as a fruit picker; ALJ therefore found no disability (decision dated January 11, 2016).
The VE at hearing mistakenly cited the DOT number for "transplanter, orchid" (405.687-018) instead of the correct DOT entry for "harvest worker, fruit" (403.687-010), which the DOT classifies as medium work.
Plaintiff’s written Work History Report listed a maximum lift of 25 pounds for past work, but her hearing testimony described carrying boxes weighing about 20 pounds (consistent with light work).
The ALJ credited Plaintiff’s hearing testimony and vocational report as to how the job was actually performed and concluded she could perform her past work as actually performed despite the DOT’s medium exertional listing.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) the ALJ’s Step Four finding that she could perform past relevant work is unsupported by substantial evidence given the RFC and VE errors, and (2) the ALJ erred in his consideration of her limited English/literacy; the Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ’s Step Four finding that Plaintiff can perform past relevant work is supported by substantial evidence	Garduno: ALJ relied on erroneous/misidentified VE testimony and inconsistent work‑history report (25 lbs) so past‑work finding unsupported	Commissioner: Any VE/DOT error was harmless because ALJ based finding on how Plaintiff actually performed the job (hearing testimony and work report)	Court: Affirmed — ALJ permissibly credited hearing testimony (20‑lb boxes) over form report and substantial evidence supports finding she could perform past work as actually performed
Whether ALJ erred in considering Plaintiff’s limited English/literacy at Step Four	Garduno: ALJ should have treated illiteracy/limited English as requiring a disability finding under the grids or at least explained effect	Commissioner: (did not contest) ALJ noted decades of work communicating sufficiently and relied on actual‑performance evidence	Court: No error — ALJ reasonably found Plaintiff communicated adequately to perform fruit‑picking as actually performed; grids apply at Step Five, so not required here

Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (substantial‑evidence standard and harmless‑error principles for ALJ decisions)
Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards for reviewing ALJ factual findings)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence defined)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (reviewing record as whole, weigh supporting and detracting evidence)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error doctrine in social security cases)
Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2001) (sources for determining past relevant work as actually performed and as generally performed)
Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ resolves credibility and conflicting testimony)
Bray v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (definition of substantial evidence)