Vanessa Elyse Sherman v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 2:15-cv-03197

Background

Plaintiff Vanessa Elyse Sherman (born 1956) applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability onset October 1, 2011; ALJ denied benefits on August 29, 2013; Appeals Council denied review and district court review followed.
ALJ found severe impairments (diabetes, hypertension, COPD, left shoulder sprain), assessed an RFC for limited light work, and concluded plaintiff could perform past relevant work as a fast-food worker and cashier, so she was not disabled.
Plaintiff appeared at the administrative hearing without counsel; a vocational expert testified about her past work.
Dispute centers on whether plaintiff’s past jobs qualified as "past relevant work" because they constituted substantial gainful activity (SGA) during the relevant 15-year period.
Record contains earnings queries for 1998–2012 but lacks a detailed earnings query for 2001; plaintiff earned $13,627.02 in 2001 (creating a presumption of SGA) but the source and allocation of those earnings among employers/occupations is ambiguous.
The ALJ did not resolve ambiguities about which job(s) in which year(s) met SGA or make the factual findings required by SSR 82-62; court remanded for further proceedings to clarify those findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly found plaintiff had "past relevant work" because her earnings may not have met SGA in the relevant years	Sherman: record lacks evidence that her cashier/fast-food work rose to SGA except possibly 2001; ALJ failed to develop record and identify which job/year met SGA	Colvin: VE testimony and plaintiff’s own statements show she worked at SGA levels (e.g., Target 2001; long-term McDonald’s work); burden on plaintiff to prove inability to do past work	Court held ALJ erred by not resolving ambiguous earnings/occupation evidence and failing to make SSR 82-62 findings; remand for clarification and further development

Key Cases Cited

Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (definition of substantial evidence)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (review must consider record as a whole)
Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001) (review includes adverse and supporting evidence)
Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (deference when evidence permits more than one rational interpretation)
Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (court may not substitute its judgment for ALJ when evidence supports either outcome)
Sam v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ decision becomes Commissioner’s final decision if Appeals Council denies review)
Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for disturbing Commissioner’s decision)
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1996) (five-step sequential evaluation)
Drouin v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1992) (definition of disability duration requirement)
Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ’s duty to develop the record)
Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2003) (heightened duty to develop when claimant unrepresented)
Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (earnings presumptive but not conclusive evidence of SGA; need inquiry into sustained ability)
Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (court reviews reasons the ALJ actually asserts)
Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (no post hoc justification for ALJ’s decision)
Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ must support findings with evidence discussed)
McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1989) (court’s discretion to remand or award benefits)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (when to award benefits vs. remand)
Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand appropriate where outstanding factual issues remain)