T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

U pon the pa rt i e s ’ m utua l a gr e e m e nt , thi s c a s e w a s s ubm i tt e d f or ** d e c is io n w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (f ). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LARR Y TRUND LE , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C OMMI S S I ON E R OF S OC I AL S E C UR I T Y A DMI NI S T R AT I ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 15281 D. C. No . 1 : 0 9 - c v - 0 2 0 5 8 - J LT ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e nni f e rL . T hur s t on, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y15, 2012 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: T H O M A S , M cK E O W N , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L a rry T rundl e appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta f f i rm i ng the C o m m is s io n e r ’s d e n ia l o f T ru n d le ’s ap p lic a tio n f o rs o c ia l s e c u r ityb e n e f

its . 

# FI LED MA Y22 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

T rund l e a l l eges di sabi l i ty due t o b ac k p ai n. A tS t ep F i ve, the A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw Judg e ( “ A L J” ) f

ou nd T rund l e c ou l d p er form j ob s thatexi sti n si gn i fi cantnu m bers i n the na t i ona l e c onom y . O n appe a l , T rundl e m a ke s tw o c or e a r gum e nt s : 1) the A L J i m prop er l y r ej ec t ed the op i ni on of T rund l e’ s e xam i ni ng ph ys i ci an, D r. B e rr i e n; a nd 2) s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e doe s nots upportthe A L J ’ s S t e p F i ve de c i s i on because the A L J i m prop er l y r el i ed on t es t i m on y of pas tw ork thatw as m ore than 1 5 years o l d an d th e A L J u sed th e m ed i u m m ed i cal -v o cat i o n al ru l es as a f r a me w o rk . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he A L J provi ded “ spec i fi c, l egi t i m at e r ea sons” s up po rt ed by “ subst ant i al evi dence, ” T

h o m a s v. B a rn h a rt , 278 F . 3d 947, 957 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed), for herdeci si on t o cre di tD r. M adi re dd i ov erD r. B erri en. B as ed on the t ot al i ty of the evi dence i n the re cord, “ [t ] he A L J m ay d is r e g a r d th e tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’s o p in io n w h e th e ro rn o t th a t o p in io n is contra di ct ed. ” M

ag al lan es v. B ow en , 8 8 1 F .2 d 7 4 7 , 7 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . B o th do ct ors e xam i ned T rund l e onl y once. D r. B erri en’ s e xam i nat i on , ho w ever , occurre d m ore than seven years before T rund l e f i l ed the S oci al S ec uri ty c l ai m at is s u e h e r e , a n d w a s b a s e d o n u n r e liab le s u b je c tiv e c o m p la in ts v o ic e d b yT ru n d le . I n a ddi t i on, D r . B e rr i e n w a s a n e xa m i ni ng phy s i c i a n, notatr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n, a nd h is f in d in g s w e r e c o n tr a d ic te d b y D r . M a d ir e d d i’s m o r e r e c e n t a n d m o r e r e liab le- 3-

fi nd i ng s. T he deci si on t o cre di tD r. M adi re dd i ov erD r. B erri en w as there fore supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a ls o s u p p o rts th e A L J ’s S te p F iv e d e c is io n . T ru n d le is notl i m i t e d t o l i ghtw ork; r a the r , he i s l i m i t e d t o m e di um w ork w i th as l i ght re d u ctio n in th e to tal am o u n t o f lifti n g . A lth o u g h th e A L J r ef erre d to T ru n d le’s p astw o rkex p eri en ce as a tru ckd ri v er, th e reco rd i s u n cl ear as t o w h eth er th atp ast w ork e xpe r i e nc e w a s m or e tha n f i f t e e n y e a r s ol d. A s s um i ng, w i thoutde c i di ng, thatthe A L J e rr ed i n ref erri ng t o T rund l e’ s pas tw ork exp er i ence , the error w as ha rm l e s s be c aus e the A L Jtw i c e a c know l e dge d i n he ropi ni on tha tT rundl e ’ s pr i or w o rke x p e r ie n c e w a s n o t r e le v a n t. Se e B at s on v . C om m ’ rof

the Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( f in d in g e rr o rh a rm le s s w h e r e it d id n o t n e g a te the va l i di ty of

the A L J ’ s ul t i m a t e c onc l us i on) . F urthe r , the r e gul a t i on doe s not p r e c l u d e c o n s i d e r i n g p a s tw o rke x p e r i e n c e o l d e rth a n f i f t e e n y e a r s . 2 0 C. F. R. § 4 0 4 .1 5 6 5 ( a ) . R a th e r , f if te e n y e a r s is th e tim e f

r a m e th a t th e a g e n c y“u s u a lly consi der[ s] . ” I

d. T he re gu l at i on al so st at es thatw here an appl i canthas “ ac qu i re d s ki l l s thr ough y ourpa s tw ork, w e c ons i de ry ou t o ha ve the s e w ork s ki l l s unl e s s y ou cann otuse them i n o ther s ki l l ed or se m i -s ki l l ed w ork thatyou can no w do . ” I d. D r iv in g is as k ill u n lik e lyto b e e n tir e lylo s t w ith th e p a s s a g e o f tim e , a n d T ru n d le t es t i fi ed thathe st i l l dri ves. A dd i t i on al l y, the A L J properl y posed hypo thet i ca l- 4-

que s t i ons t o the V oc a t i ona l E xpe rta nd pr ope r l yba s e d thos e que s t i ons on the m e d ic a l f

in d in g s o f

D r . M a d ir e d d i. See T

acke t t v. Apf el , 1 8 0 F .3 d 1 0 9 4 , 1 1 0 1 ( 9 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( desc ri bi ng the rol e of aV ocat i on al E xp erti n a S oci al S ec uri ty heari ng ). F i na l l y , the V oc a t i ona l E xpe rtpr ope r l ya c c ount e d f orT rundl e ’ s l i f

t i ng c ap a c ityb e in g s lig h tlyb e lo w th e n o rm a l c u t- o f f f o r“m e d iu m ” a n d a c c o r d in g ly di sc ou nt ed the nu m ber of j ob s avai l abl e. T rundl e ’ s m ot i on t o t a ke j udi c i a l not i c e i s de ni e d. AF F I RME D.