Rodrigues Troncao, Jr. v. O'Malley
- Edward Davila
- 5:23-cv-03467
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Rodrigues Troncao v. O’Malley, Judge Davila ordered a disability finding and benefit calculation because too few jobs supported the denial.
Domingos Rodrigues Troncao, Jr., whose disability claim must be remanded for a finding of disability and calculation of benefits; the Commissioner’s denial was reversed.
What happened
In Rodrigues Troncao, Jr. v. O’Malley, both sides agreed that the Administrative Law Judge made errors when denying Domingos Rodrigues Troncao, Jr.’s disability application. They disagreed only about whether the case should return for more proceedings or for a disability finding and benefit calculation.
The court found that the evidence showed only 19,400 available jobs that Domingos Rodrigues Troncao, Jr. could perform. Even assuming two additional jobs, the total would be no more than 23,400, below the 25,000-job threshold generally used by courts in the Ninth Circuit. The court concluded that further proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for remand, reversed the Commissioner’s decision, and remanded the case for a finding of disability and calculation of benefits.
The detailed version
- Rodrigues Troncao, Jr. v. O'Malley · No. 5:23-cv-03467
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 16, 2024
Background
Domingos Rodrigues Troncao, Jr. challenged the denial of his Social Security disability application. The parties agreed that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made mistakes. Their dispute concerned the proper remedy: the plaintiff sought a remand for a finding of disability and calculation of benefits, while the Commissioner sought a remand for additional administrative proceedings.
Issue and governing standard
At the fifth step of the disability evaluation process, the Commissioner must show that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform despite his limitations. The court reviews the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and legal error. A remand for immediate calculation of benefits is appropriate when further proceedings would serve no useful purpose and the record makes clear that the ALJ would have to find the claimant disabled if the evidence were properly evaluated.
Court’s reasoning
The vocational expert identified three jobs: document preparer, with 15,600 positions; addresser, with 2,000 positions; and nut sorter, with 1,800 positions. Those jobs totaled 19,400 positions. The court explained that courts in the Ninth Circuit generally find fewer than 25,000 total available jobs insufficient to support a denial of disability benefits.
The vocational expert also mentioned “a couple of others” of the plaintiff’s possible jobs that were available in low numbers. The court reasoned that, even assuming two additional jobs with 2,000 positions each, the total would be only 23,400 positions—still below 25,000. The court therefore concluded that further proceedings would not change the result.
The court also rejected the Commissioner’s argument that further proceedings were needed to address an earlier error involving the plaintiff’s testimony about the severity of his limitations. The court stated that the Commissioner could not use an error at another step to obtain another opportunity after failing to meet the burden at Step Five. In any event, the court reasoned, a better explanation of the same conclusion would not change the result, while crediting the plaintiff’s testimony would impose more work restrictions and produce fewer available jobs.
Disposition
Judge Edward J. Davila granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s motion for remand. The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for a finding of disability and calculation of benefits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.