Because the ALJ limited Plaintiff to occasional interaction and no collaborative work with others, the ALJ was required to obtain the testimony of a VE as to the effect of those limitations on her occupational base, and erred in relying on the Grids to direct a finding of no disability. See Terrill, 2018 WL 4503429, at *3-4; see also Dubord v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:16-cv-1402-CMK, 2018 WL 1638866 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2018); Little v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1153-54 (D. Or. 2011); Gonzales v. Astrue, No. 1:09-CV-01306-GSA, 2010 WL 4392911 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2010); Stark v. Astrue, No. 07-6465, 2009 WL 2566723 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); Shankles v. Astrue, No. 09-1258, 2010 WL 5169077 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2010); Galinski v. Astrue, No. C11-516-RSL-JPD, 2011 WL 7070323, at *16 (W.D. Wash. 2011). Defendant cites to George v. Berryhill, 727 F. App'x 287, 290-91 (9th Cir. 2018), and Cowen v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 400 F. App'x 275, 277 (9th Cir. 2010), in support of its position. (Doc. 25 at 5.)

t. LEXIS 116982 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2014) (grids inapplicable where the ALJ limited claimant to less than frequent interaction with others) (citing Little v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1153-54 (D. Or. 2011) (emphasizing that unskilled work requires ability to respond appropriately to supervision and coworkers, even if it involves "dealing primarily with objects"); Gonzales v. Astrue, 1:09-CV-01306-GSA, 2010 WL 4392911 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010) (grids inapplicable because Plaintiff's history of supervisory conflict and moderate impairments in dealing with work stress could limit Plaintiff's occupational base); Stark v. Astrue, No. 07-6465, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72807 at *18-21, 2009 WL 2566723 (N.D. Cal. Aug.18, 2009) (SSR 85-15 did not support ALJ's assertion that restrictions in working with public, coworkers, and supervisors did not limit occupational base of unskilled light work, ALJ accordingly erred in relying solely on Grids to find plaintiff not disabled); Shankles v. Astrue, No. 09-1258, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132145 at *43-44, 2010 WL 5169077 (E.D. Cal. Dec.14, 2010) (finding unskilled work requires ability to interact with coworkers and supervisors and lack of that ability could affect occupational base at all exertional levels so reliance on grids inappropriate); Galinski v. Astrue, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151424, 2011 WL 7070323, *16 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (SSR 85-15 did not support ALJ's assertion that restrictions in working with public, coworkers, and supervisors did not limit occupational base of unskilled light work; ALJ accordingly erred in relying solely on Grids to find plaintiff not disabled); Gurney v. Astrue, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122088, 2010 WL 323912, *3 (D. Me. 2010) (same). As noted by the ALJ, SSR 85-15 provides that one of the requirements of unskilled work is the ability "to respond appropriately to supervision [and] coworkers...." AR 27, 20 CFR § 404.1521; SR 85-15, 1985 SSR LEXIS 20 at *11.

om at his residence (T. 18, 186); used public transportation (T. 18, 35); went to the library (T. 18, 49); and shopped for groceries. (T. 18, 35, 184). Because the determination that plaintiff's non-exertional impairments did not significantly erode the occupational base of unskilled labor was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ was not required to consult with a VE.SeeSipe v. Astrue, 873 F. Supp.2d 471, 481 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (affirming ALJ's decision not to use a VE when plaintiff was inter alia, mildly or moderately limited in all the basic mental functions listed on the RFC form); Ellis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:11-CV-1205 (GTS/ATB), 2012 WL 5464632, at *14 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2012) (ALJ was not required to consult a VE when moderate limitation on ability to work in proximity to others without distraction did not significantly diminish ability to perform unskilled work). Plaintiff cites D'Anna v. Comm. of Soc. Sec., No. 08-1650, 2009 WL 5214998 (M.D.Fla Dec. 30, 2009) and Shankles v. Astrue, No. 09-1258, 2010 WL 5169077 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 14, 2010) as cases in which the court remanded for the ALJ's failure to call a VE where the claimant had a limited ability to work in close proximity to others. Unlike this case, the ALJs in D'Anna and Shankles failed to determine whether plaintiff could meet the basic mental demands of unskilled work. D'Anna, 2009 WL 5214998, at *6-7; Shankles, 2010 WL 5169077, at *14.

This is so even when the occupational base is comprised of jobs at all exertional levels. See Little, 780 F. Supp. 2d at 1153 (holding restriction on interaction with coworkers and supervisors, could affect occupational base of unskilled work at all exertional levels); Shankles v. Astrue, No. 09-1258, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132145 at *43-44, 2010 WL 5169077 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2010) (finding unskilled work requires ability to interact with coworkers and supervisors and lack of that ability could affect occupational base at all exertional levels so reliance on grids inappropriate ); Cox, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81134 at *28 (finding limitation on contact with others incongruent with definition of unskilled work and could affect occupational base at all exertional levels); D'Anna v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 08-1640, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121243 at *22-24, 2009 WL 5214998 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2009) (limitation on proximity to others incongruent with definition of unskilled work and could have effect of eroding occupational base at all exertional levels). To be sure, several courts have drawn the opposite conclusion under similar facts.