Tome v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:24-cv-05922

Plaintiff Jane T. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), alleging disability onset as of August 1, 2020.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her application, finding her not disabled; the Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ’s decision final.
Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s step five finding that she had transferable skills to other work.
The ALJ relied on a Vocational Expert (VE) to conclude Plaintiff had transferable skills (e.g., customer service, clerical, printing, processing) from her past work and could perform jobs such as data entry clerk and cashier.
Plaintiff, who was over 60 years old at the relevant time and limited to light work, argued the ALJ erred in the skill transfer and age analysis.
The Court reviewed whether the ALJ’s findings were legally sound and supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Identification of Transferable Skills	ALJ used broad categories, not specific skills; no substantial evidence Plaintiff acquired relevant skills in past work.	The VE testimony was sufficient to identify transferable skills.	The ALJ erred; did not identify specific skills or establish substantial evidence.
Transferability of Skills to Other Jobs	Plaintiff cannot perform proposed jobs without new skills/training; VE testimony was inadequate.	Skills from prior work sufficed for other identified jobs.	The ALJ’s finding not supported by substantial evidence; VE testimony inadequate.
Consideration of Advanced Age	ALJ failed to account for stricter transferability rules for claimants 60+.	Age was adequately considered in vocational adjustment analysis.	ALJ failed to properly consider Plaintiff’s age category.
Remedy: Award of Benefits vs. Remand	Plaintiff asked for outright benefits under new rules redefining past work.	ALJ acted under law at time; only remand is appropriate.	Remand for further administrative proceedings, not outright award.

Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (clarifies standard for substantial evidence review in disability cases)
Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 1999) (establishes legal error standard in Social Security appeals)
Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (requires ALJ to specifically identify transferable skills)
Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (vocational expert testimony as substantial evidence)
Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2015) (harmless error review in Social Security cases)
Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (standards for remand versus award of benefits)