N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
JO H NNY R. M YL E S,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANCY A. B E RRYH IL L , Ac ting Com m issione r Soc ial Se c ur ity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-56953 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-09122-GJS
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ga il J. Sta

ndish, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

M ay 12, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI and O W E NS , C irc uit Judge s, a nd W IL K E N , *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
MAY16 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble C la udia W ilke n, Unite d State s Se nior Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.pa ge 2

M y le s a rgue s tha t, at ste p five of the e va luation proc e ss, the Adm inistra tive Law Judge (“ ALJ” ) wa s re quire d to a pply the M e dic a l-Voc a tiona l Guide line s ta ble for “ se de n ta

ry work,” whic h

would wa

rra nt a finding tha

t he is disa

ble d. At step five , the ALJ re fe rs to the Guide line s to de te rm ine whe the r a c la im ant is a

ble to pe rform othe r jobs in the

nationa l e c onom

y in light of his lim

ita tions (e .g., his a ge , e duc a tion, work e xp e rie nc e and re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c i ty ). Se e Ta c ke tt v. Apfe l, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th C ir. 1999); 20 C .F.R
. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). W he re the G uide line s do not “ c om ple te ly and a c c ura te ly

re pre se nt a c la im ant’ s lim ita tions,” an ALJ m

u st c onsult the

te stim ony

of a voc a tiona l e xp e rt (“ VE” ). Ta c ke tt, 180 F.3d a

t 1101–02. M y le s is c a

pa ble of sta n ding a nd wa lking for up to four hours in a n e ighthour work da

y a s we ll a s lifting a

nd c a rry i ng twe nty

pounds oc c a siona lly

and te n pounds fre que ntly . Thus, he fa lls be twe e n the “ light work”and “ se d e n ta ry work”
c la ssific a tions. 20 C .F.R . § 416.967(a)–(b); se e a lso SSR 83-10, 1983 W

L 31251,
a t *5–6 (Ja

n. 1, 1983) (e xpla ining tha t “ light work”ha s a

six-hour c a

p for sta nding
and wa lking while

“ se de nta ry work” ha s a

two-hour c a

p). As a pplie d to M y le s, the Guide line s’ “ se de nta

ry work” and “ light work”ta ble s le a d to opposite

c onc lusions of “ d isa ble d ” and “ not disa

ble d,” re spe c t ive ly . Se e 20 C .F.R . Pt. 404, Subpt. P,pa ge 3

App. 2, R ule s 201.14 & 202.14. The re fore , the ALJ prope rly re l ie d on the te stim ony of a VE. Se e Thom a s v. B arnha rt, 278 F.3d 947, 960 (9th C ir. 2002). The ALJ’ s hy

pothe tic a l que stion to the VE a de quat e ly

inc orporate d M y le s’ s lim ita tions. Se e id. a

t 956. The VE te stifie d tha t M y l e s is c a

p a b le of pe rform ing two “ light work”oc c upat ions, c a shie r II a nd be n c h a sse m b le r, be c a use a stool
c ould be provide d to a c c om m odate his limita

tions. TheVE c onc lude d tha t
a pproxim a te l y

8,000 loc a l jobs a

nd 650,000 na

tiona l jobs e xist within the se two
oc c upations, a fte r re duc tions to a c c ount for jobs in whic h a stool would not be
a va ila ble . M y le s satisfie s a ll othe r “ light work”re quire m e nts, inc luding thea bility to lift a nd c arry up to twe nty

pounds. 20 C .F.R . § 416.967(b). Ac c ordingly , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t M y le s is not disa

ble d.
AFFIRM E D.