Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eugene Brooks, III applied for Social Security disability benefits on September 20, 2021, alleging disability beginning December 31, 2016. After denials, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on April 4, 2024 and issued a May 1, 2024 decision. The ALJ found severe degenerative disc disease, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia, but no listed impairment. The ALJ assessed a medium-work residual functional capacity limited to simple, routine tasks that are not fast paced and have no strict production demands, occasional contact with supervisors, coworkers, and the public, and low-stress work.
Relying on a vocational expert, the ALJ found at step five that Brooks could work as an industrial cleaner, cleaner II, or hand packager, jobs numbering roughly 750,000, 125,000, and 150,000 nationally. The Appeals Council denied review on September 13, 2024, and Brooks sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He argued that the ALJ inadequately discounted his symptom testimony, misused his daily activities, cherry-picked treatment notes to suggest mental improvement, and ignored Rounds v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 807 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2015), after finding a moderate concentration limitation. The court reviews whether the decision rests on proper legal standards and substantial evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends denying Brooks's summary judgment motion, granting the Commissioner's cross-motion, and affirming the decision. The ALJ's symptom analysis was not the conclusory boilerplate rejected in Lambert v. Saul, because the ALJ went on to cite specific reasons. Brooks testified that he could lift about fifty pounds and stand or walk five to six hours, and that he kept applying for sales associate jobs. Examinations in 2021 through 2023 also showed generally unremarkable mental functioning, including normal attention and memory.
The ALJ also made the specific findings that Burch v. Barnhart and Orn v. Astrue require before relying on daily activities. The ALJ cited mowing a neighbor's lawn, exercise, basketball, guitar, socializing, church attendance, and household chores, and likened contact with friends and congregants to contact with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. The cherry-picking argument essentially asked the court to reweigh evidence. The ALJ considered Brooks's mental health history, including hallucination and paranoia notes, and where the record supports more than one rational reading, the ALJ's conclusion stands.
Rounds does not require a one-to-two step limitation whenever a moderate concentration limitation is found. It addressed an inconsistency between that limitation and jobs requiring GED Reasoning Level 2, and the ALJ here imposed a different limitation. On the claimed unresolved conflict with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, the findings note that the ALJ identified that the DOT does not address low-stress work and interactions with others, and accepted the expert's testimony based on her experience. This is a recommendation only. Objections are due within 14 days of service, and the assigned district judge must decide whether to adopt it. No judgment has been entered.
Key Takeaways
- A reviewing court asks only whether the ALJ applied proper legal standards and whether substantial evidence supports the decision, so a decision stands where the evidence permits more than one rational interpretation.
- Symptom testimony may be discounted when the ALJ identifies which statements are undermined and ties them to specific testimony and medical findings rather than reciting boilerplate.
- Daily activities support an adverse finding when the ALJ makes specific findings about how they relate to workplace functioning, not merely because the claimant is active.
- A moderate concentration, persistence, or pace finding does not by itself require a limitation to one-to-two step tasks under Rounds.
- Findings and recommendations are not final, so objections and the district judge's review remain.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's unpublished recommendation in a routine Eastern District of California Social Security appeal, so it carries no precedential weight and only persuasive value. Its practical value lies in showing how courts apply Ninth Circuit credibility and step-five authority to a mental-health claim where the residual functional capacity uses non-exertional restrictions rather than a one-to-two step limit.
The district judge has not yet ruled. If the recommendation is adopted, the ALJ's denial would stand with no remand. A party that fails to object in time may waive appellate rights.