(SS) Myrick v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:19-cv-01659
E.D. Cal.Dec 10, 2020Background
- Pamala Myrick applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging onset October 9, 2014; the ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council denied review.
- The ALJ found severe cardiac, pulmonary, and cervical impairments and an RFC for light work limited to standing/walking four hours in an eight-hour day.
- The ALJ found Plaintiff could not perform past relevant work but—based on a VE—had transferable skills of “keeping records and handling money” and could perform clearing house clerk, dividend clerk, and collector.
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s transferable-skills and vocational-adjustment findings, arguing the identified tasks are not "skills," the ALJ applied the wrong standard for an older claimant, and the VE/ALJ failed to show factual overlap between prior work and the identified jobs.
- The VE’s only stated basis for minimal vocational adjustment was equivalent SVP levels; the VE and ALJ did not explain overlap in tools, work processes, settings, or industry.
- The court held the ALJ’s step-five finding was unsupported by substantial evidence and remanded for further proceedings; judgment was entered for Plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "keeping records" and "handling money" are transferable "skills" | Myrick: these tasks are common to unskilled jobs and therefore are not skills under SSR 82-41 and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(a) | Commissioner: tasks can be skilled if performed at a more complex level (e.g., bank teller vs. retail cashier) | Court: ALJ/VE identified only the generic tasks without distinguishing complexity; generic tasks cannot be treated as transferable "skills." |
| Whether ALJ applied correct vocational-adjustment standard for a claimant age 60+ limited to light work | Myrick: ALJ failed to apply 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(4) requiring analysis of tools, work processes, settings, or industry | Commissioner: VE/ALJ showed very little adjustment would be required (skills have cross-industry applicability) | Court: ALJ did not pose required inquiry; VE’s conclusion rested on SVP alone, which does not satisfy § 404.1568(d)(4); error. |
| Whether the three identified occupations actually require the purported transferable skills | Myrick: DOT descriptions for clearing house clerk, dividend clerk, and collector do not reflect cash handling; VE gave no factual overlap explanation | Commissioner: clerical skills are universally applicable and therefore transferable | Court: Job descriptions do not show handling-money overlap; VE failed to explain how Plaintiff’s specific skills mapped to these jobs; inadequate support. |
| Whether the transferable-skills analysis used relevant criteria (tools, processes, settings, industry) | Myrick: ALJ/VE failed to analyze those factors; instead relied on SVP | Commissioner: SVP and general clerical applicability justify minimal adjustment finding | Court: SVP is irrelevant to vocational-adjustment inquiry; lack of analysis on tools/processes/settings/industry means findings are unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing ALJ disability findings and substantial-evidence review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence in administrative record)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (burden shifts to Commissioner at step five)
- Bray v. Commissioner of Social Security, 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (courts review the ALJ’s reasoning, not post hoc rationalizations)
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand for further proceedings is the usual remedy when record is inconclusive)
- Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (step-five may be satisfied by VE testimony or the Grids)
- Silveira v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2000) (Commissioner’s burden at step five)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless-error standard for ALJ mistakes)