N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M AR THA M AR

Y PETITE, in he r c a pa c i ty a s pe rsona l re p re se n tative for the Esta te of C ARL PETITE, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-55314 D.C . No. 5:15-c v-00543-GJS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat 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

Nove m b e r 15, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NGUYEN a

n d HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd LOGAN, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED
DEC 08 2017 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 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 Ste ve n Pa

ul Loga n, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa t ion.M artha M ary Pe t i te a ppe a ls a distric t c ourt orde r a ffirm ing the de nia l of a n
a pplic a tion file d by

he r late husba

nd, C arl Pe tite , for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo. Hoopai v . Astrue , 499 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th C ir. 2007). W e a ffirm
. At ste p five of the se que n tia l e va luation proc e s s, the a dm inistra tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) c onc lude d tha t Pe tite wa s c a

p a ble of pe rform i ng “ othe r work tha t
e xists in signific a

n t num b e rs in the nationa l e c onom y . ” Tac k e tt v . Apfe l , 180 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th C ir. 1999) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d); 20 C .F.R . § 404.1520(a)(v). Pe t ite wa s una ble to pe rform

the full ra

nge of “ m e dium

work” unde r the M e dic a l -Voc a tiona l Guide line s (the “ G u ide line s” ) be c a use of his signific ant none xe rtiona l lim ita tions. Se e 20 C .F.R . pt. 404, subpt. P, a pp. 2; 20 C .F.R . § 404.1569a (c ). As a re sult, theALJ prope rly

c onsulte d a

voc ationa l
e xpe rt, who te s tifie d tha

t Pe tite c ould pe rform work a s a data e ntry c le rk. Se e Tac k e tt , 180 F.3d a

t 1102–04. There are 272,810 positions for a data e ntry c le rk in the n a tiona l e c onom

y . The ALJ’ s ste p-five de te rm i nation is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , a

nd is not le ga lly

e rrone ous. Se e Hoopai , 499 F.3d a t 1074. Pe tite argue s tha

t the ALJ’ s a

pplic ation of Guide line s se c tion 203.08 wa s
e rrone ous be c a

use he c ould not pe rform

the full ra

nge of “ m e dium

work.” Se e 20
2C .F.R . pt. 404, subpt. P, a pp. 2, § 203.08. Howe

ve r, in a ddition to re ly ing on a
voc a tiona l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony , the ALJ wa s pe rm itte d to use the “ m e dium work” grid a s a “ fra m e work” for de c ision-m aking sinc e Pe t ite ’ s e xe rtiona l lim ita tions
m a tc h the de finition of “m e dium work.” S

e e C oope r v . Sulliva n , 880 F.2d 1152, 1155 (9th C ir. 1989); 20 C .F.R . pt. 404, subpt. P, a pp. 2, § 200.00(e )(2); 20 C .F.R
. § 404.1567(c )

. AFFIRM E D.

3