N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT STEVEN B YELOVIC H , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN (Ac ting), C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , ** De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-36071 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-05867-R AJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ha rd A. Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2013 *** Se attle , W a s hington 

# FIL ED JUN 27 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** M ic ha e l J. Astrue , is substitute d for his pre de c e ssor a s C om m issione r of the Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm i nistra

tion. Fe d. R . App. P. 43 (c ) (2). *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c o nc 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).B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

nd EB EL * *** C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nt Ste ve n Ye l ovic h (Ye l ovic h) c ha lle n ge s the de nia l of his c la im for disa bility be ne fits.

1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Ye l ovic h wa s not fully c re d ible . His subje c tive c om p la ints we re inc onsiste nt with his c onse rvative c o urse of tre a tm e nt a nd da i ly a c tivitie s. Additional ly , Ye lovic h a dm itte d to de c e iving doc t ors a

bout his m e t

ham phe tam ine use and pre s e nte d inc o nsiste nt te s tim ony

a bout his drug a

buse . Unde r the c irc um sta n c e s , the ALJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

finding re s te d on pe rm issiblec onside rations. Se e C haudhry v . Astrue , 688 F.3d 661, 672 (9th C ir. 2012) (noting tha t whe n we ighing c re dibility , an ALJ m ay

c onside r “ (1) ordina

ry te c hnique s of c re dibility

e va luation, suc h a s the c la im ant’ s re puta

tion for ly ing, prior inc onsiste nt sta t e m e nts c onc e rning the sym ptom s, a nd othe r te stim ony

by the c la im ant tha

t a ppe ars le ss tha

n c andid; (2) une xpla i ne d or ina de quate ly e xpla ine d fa ilure to se e k tre atm e nt or to follow a pre s c ribe d c ourse of tre atm e nt; a nd (3) the c la i m ant’ s da ily a c tivitie s. . . .” ).

**** The Honora

ble David M . Ebe l , Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion. 2 22. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the ALJ’ s R FC de te rm ination tha

t Ye lovic h wa s c a pa ble of se de nta

ry work with some re s tric tions. TheALJ re lie d on m e dic a l re c ords indic a ting tha t Ye lovic h posse sse d norm a l a m bula tion with lim

i te d range of m otion re stric tions, a nd c ould be tre ate d c o nse rvative ly with pa in m e dic a t ion a

nd phy sic a l the ra

py . Psy c hologic a l e va luations indic ate d tha t Ye lovic h c ould pe rform

“ sim ple , re pe titive ta sks” a s se t forth in theR FC . The ALJ pre se nte d “ s pe c ific and le gitim ate ” re a sons for re je c ting psy c hologic a l opinions outlining m

o re se ve re de fic its be c a

use Ye lovic h a dm i tte d to c onc e a ling his drug usefrom those doc t o rs. Se e Morgan v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 169 F.3d 595, 602-03 (9th C ir. 1999) (e xpla ining tha t re sults of psy c hologic a l te sting m ay be c a lle d into que s tion ba s e d on a c la im ant’ s drug use ).

3. The hy

pothe tic a l que stion pose d to the voc ationa l e xpe rt (VE) inc o rporate d a ll of the phy sic a l lim ita tions from the R

FC . Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the

ALJ’ s e xc lusion of a

“ re a c hing” re stric tion from the R FC and the hy pothe t ic a l be c a

use Ye l ovic h’ s doc tor note d tha t his shoulde

r injury “ should im prove .” B e c a

u se the R FC wa s not de fe c tive , the hy pothe t ic a l que stion pose d to the V E wa s prope r. Se e Vale ntine v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th C ir. 2009) (e xpla ining tha t the hy pothe t ic a l que stion is derive d from the R FC ). 35. At ste p five of the disa b i lity ana ly sis, theburde n shifts to the Soc i a l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion to de m o nstra

te tha t the c la im a

nt is not disa

ble d a nd tha t he c an e nga ge in som e ty

pe of substa

ntia l ga inful a c tivity

“ that e xists in ‘ signific ant num be rs’ in the nationa l e c o n om y . . .” Loc k

w ood v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 616 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th C ir. 2010). An ALJ c an m ake this de te rm i nation by obta ining thete stim ony o f a VE a bout thec la im ant’ s voc ationa l c a pa c ity . Se e id . The pa rtie s a gre e tha

t the VE in this c a se inc o rre c tly re fe re nc e d two of thethre e oc c upations he de e m e d Ye lovic h c a pa ble of pe rform i ng. The VE’ s te stim ony wa s only a c c urate with re spe c t

to the oc c upation of doc um e nt pre pa re r. The VE te stifie d tha

t 900 re g iona l a

nd 42,000 na

t iona l jobs e xiste d for this oc c upation.

“ W e have ne ve r se t out a

bright-linerule for what c onstitute s a ‘ signific ant num be r’ of jobs.” B e ltran v . Astrue , 700 F.3d 386, 389 (9th C ir. 2012), as ame nde d . In Be l tran , we he ld tha t 135 re giona l and 1,680 na tiona l jobs wa s not

a signific ant num

be r. S e e id. a t 390. B y

c o ntra st, we have he ld tha t a s fe w a s 1,266 re giona l jobs w as a

signific ant num

be r and we have re fe re nc e d c a se s finding a s fe w a s 500 jobs signific ant. Se e Bark e r v . Se c ’yof He alth & Human Se rv s. , 882 F.2d 1474, 1478-79 (9th C ir. 1989), as ame nde d . B e c a use the ava ila

bility of 900 re giona l doc um e nt pre pa

re r jobs is sim

ila r to num be rs we have found “ signific ant” in the pa st, the VE’ s e rror is ha rm l e ss. Se e B u rc h v . Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 679

4(9th C ir. 2005) (holding tha t a disa bility finding is subje c t to ha

rm le ss e rror ana ly sis). W e do not de c ide whe the r the doc um e nt pre p are r position is inc o nsiste nt with Ye lovic h ’ s R FC lim ita tion of “ sim

ple , re pe titive ta s ks.” Ye lovic h did not ra ise this a

rgum e nt with spe c ific ity until his re p ly brie f, and ha s the re fore wa ive d it. Se e Martine z-Se rrano v . I.N

.S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996). AFFIRM E D.

5