Garnica

MEMORANDUM ***

Enriqueta Garnica (“Garnica”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security Administration’s (the “Agency’s”) determination that Garnica is not disabled. For three reasons, we reverse and remand this case to the Agency for a new hearing.

*255 First, under Social Security Ruling 82-62, 1 an ALJ must consider carefully a claimant’s past work experience “to assure that the available facts support a conclusion regarding the claimant’s ability or inability to perform the functional activities required in this work.” Soc. Sec. Ruling 82-62, 1982 WL 31386 , at *3 (S.S.A.). To this end, an ALJ must make

Id. The decision “must be developed and explained fully,” and “every effort must be made to secure evidence that resolves the issue as clearly and explicitly as circumstances permit.” Id. Furthermore, “[i]n finding that an individual has the capacity to perform a past relevant job, the determination or decision must contain a [specific] finding of fact as to the physical and mental demands of the past job/occupation.” Id. at *4.

After briefly recounting Garnica’s testimony and the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ stated: “I find the claimant…

dissenting:

I believe the ALJ’s reasoning was sufficiently clear, and see no point to remanding.

First, Garnica’s own testimony provided all the explanation needed for the demands of prior work. The applicant’s testimony is a proper source for the requirements of her past work as actually performed, Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir.2001), and unlike Pinto , here there is no dispute that Garnica’s past orange sorting work as she described it falls within the residual functional capacity that the ALJ found — light work limited to simple, repetitive tasks.

Second, the requirements in SSR 00-4p apply only where the ALJ relies on the applicant’s prior work as generally performed in the national economy, not as actually performed; only as to the former does the DOT have any relevance. 1 The applicant’s ability to do either is sufficient to deny the claim at step four, and we do not require the ALJ to address both. Pinto, 249 F.3d at 845 .

Third, just prior to rejecting Dr. Anees’s report, the ALJ discussed at length the contrary conclusions of examining physician Dr. Broadbent and state agency consulting physicians. The ALJ also properly drew support from the notes of…