Montgomery v Astrue, No. EDCV 09–8641–CW (C.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2012)

CARLA M. WOEHRLE, United States Magistrate Judge

A reversal was appropriate where an ALJ failed to make specifics findings about the plaintiff's past relevant work as it was performed by the plaintiff and failed to compare the plaintiff's RFC to the specific exertional demands of his past relevant work.

At step four of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ is obligated to make specific findings as to the plaintiff's RFC, the “physical and mental demands” of the plaintiff's prior work, and the relation of the RFC to that past work.   Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d at 845 (citing Social Security Rulings 82–61 and 82–62). The ALJ made no findings with respect to the physical demands of plaintiff's past work, and did not make any findings with respect to the relation of plaintiff's RFC to that past work.  The decision was insufficient in terms of the step four analysis, and as as a result it did not permit the court to “determine the basis for the decision and whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision.” See Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 634–35 (9th Cir.1981).