Case ID: f-appx_457/html/0709-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sandra P. WACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-16211.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 7, 2011.
    Joel F. Friedman, Esquire, Jerome, Gibson, Stewart, Friedman, Stevenson, Engle & Runbeck, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jeffrey Chen, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Michael A. Johns, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The administrative law judge’s final decision was supported by substantial evidence and was free of reversible legal error. See Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1995). The ALJ did not err in finding Appellant’s testimony not fully credible. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir.2008) (concluding that activities of daily living, including cooking, house cleaning, doing laundry, and helping husband manage finances, supported ALJ’s credibility determination). The ALJ’s assessment of Appellant’s residual functional capacity was supported by substantial evidence and free of reversible legal error. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005) (“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.”). The ALJ’s finding that Appellant could perform jobs that exist in substantial numbers in the national economy was supported by substantial evidence and free of reversible legal error. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.2005) (“The hypothetical that the ALJ posed to the [vocational expert] contained all of the limitations that the ALJ found credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record.”). The ALJ adequately informed Appellant of her right to counsel and Appellant suffered no prejudice resulting from her lack of representation. See Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1551 (9th Cir.1985) (“Lack of counsel does not affect the validity of the hearing unless the plaintiff can demonstrate prejudice or unfairness in the administrative proceedings.”). Finally, the ALJ adequately developed the administrative record.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.