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 IA DELOSANGELES R UIZ, 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 nt-Appe l le e . No. 16-56163 D.C . No. 5:15-c v-01378-JVS-JEM
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 Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 7, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , W . FLETC HER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt M aria De losa n ge le s R uiz(“ Appe lla

nt” ) a ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s (“ C om m issione r” ) de n ia l of he r a pplic ation for disa

b ility insura

nc e be n e fits unde r 

# FIL ED
M AY09 2018 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.Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t, 42 U.S.C . § 401 e t se q . W e have jurisdic tion

unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s orde r upholding the C om m issione r’ s de nia l of be ne fits de novo. Se e C

arillo-Ye ras v . Astrue , 671 F.3d 731, 734 (9th C ir. 2011). W e only a ffirm the C om m issione r’ s de c ision if it is supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e an d not ba se d on le g a l e rror. Id . Fa c tua l de t e rm i nations a re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e whe n the re is re le va nt e vide nc e tha

t a re a sona ble pe rson c ould find a de quate to support a c onc lusion. How ard e

x re l. W o lff v . Barnhart , 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th C ir. 2003). An Adm inistra tive La w Judge ’ s (“ A LJ” ) c re dibility findings m

ust be supporte d by

spe c ific , c oge nt re a sons. Se e Gre ge r v . Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th C ir. 2006). On re v ie w, we uphold c re dibility de te rm i nations unle ss the y are “ inhe re ntly

inc re dible or pate ntly

unre a sona

ble .” Re law Broad. C o. v . N LRB , 53 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th C i r. 1995) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The ALJ prope rly

e va luate d

Appe l la nt’ s a bility to pe rform

he r pa st re le va

nt work at ste p four of the five -ste p se que ntia l proc e ss for disa bility de te rm inations. Se e 2 0 C .F.R . § 404.1520. At ste p four, the ALJ de te rm ine s whe the r a c la im ant’ s im pa irm e nt pre ve nts he r from doing pa st re le va

nt work. Pinto v

. Massanari , 249 F.3d 840, 844-45 (9th C ir. 2001). He re , the ALJ de te rm ine d tha t Appe l la nt c ould
2pe rform he r pa st re l e va nt work a s a

se wing m a c hine ope rator. Appe lla nt a rgue s that the ALJ’ s c onc lusion is le ga lly e rrone ous be c a

use he fa ile d to re solve the
c onflic t be twe e n the voc at iona l e xpe rt’ s (“ V E” ) te stim ony tha t Appe lla nt c ould pe rform he r pa st work a s a se wing m a c hine ope rator, a s ge ne ra lly pe rform e d, a

nd the re quire m e nts of tha

t voc ation in the

Dic t iona ry of Oc c upationa l Title s (“ DOT” ). No le ga l e rror is a ppa re nt. Though “ an

ALJ is re quire d

to inve stiga

te
and re solve any

a ppa re nt c onflic t be twe e n the VE’ s te stim ony and the DOT,” Shaibi v . Be rry hill , 883 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th C ir. 2018), a c onflic t is a

ppa re nt only if the c ha lle nge d voc ationa l re quire m e nt is “ e sse ntia l, inte gra l , or e xpe c te d” for the job, Gutie rre

z v . C olv in , 844 F.3d 804, 808 (9th C ir. 2016). TheDOT’ s 02 Langua ge De ve lopm e nt Le ve l for a se wing m a c hine ope rat or lists re quire m e nts inc l uding writing cursive , re a ding 190-215 words pe r m i nute , a

nd ha ving a pa ssive
voc a bula ry of 5,000-6,000 words. DOT § 787.682-030, App. C . Though the
re c o rd sugge sts Appe lla

nt doe s not ha

ve those English la

ngua ge c a pa bilitie s, it is not obvious tha

t the la ngua ge re quire m e nts a

re e sse ntia l, inte gra l, or e xpe c te d for the w ork of a se wing m a c hine ope rator. The ALJ prope rly

e va luate d Appe lla

nt’ s re s idua l func t iona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) for a

m odifie d ran ge of light work. Appe lla nt c onte nds tha

t he r RFC is not supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide n c e be c a

u se the ALJ im

prope rly re je c te d the
3opinions of her tre ating phy sic i an Dr. Thom a s Groga n, im prope rly re je c te d he r subje c tive sy

m ptom te stim ony , a

nd re lie d on a hy pothe tic a l for the VE tha

t e rre d in
re je c ting both a s we ll. The ALJ provide d spe c ific , le g itim ate re a sons, supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e , for re

je c ting Dr. Groga

n’ s opinion tha

t Appe lla nt wa s pe rm ane ntly disa ble d a nd una ble to work. Leste r v . C

hate r , 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th C ir. 1996). Dr. Groga

n’ s disa bility de te rm inat ions we re not c o nsiste ntly supporte d by inde pe nde nt e xam ination findings a nd did not c onside r Appe lla nt’ s pa st re le va

nt work a s a se wing m a c hine ope rator. In one insta nc e , Dr. Groga

n de te rm ine d tha

t Appe l la nt’ s phy sic a l lim ita

tions le ft he r pe rm a

n e ntly disa ble d only from
c onduc ting he r pa st work a s a drive r and distributor. In a nothe r insta

nc e , Dr. Groga n use d a c he c k-off form

to indic ate m

u c h m ore se ve re lim ita

t ions tha t
m irrore d Appe lla

nt’ s subje c tive c om

pla ints a nd tha t we re not supporte d by inde pe nde nt e xam ination findings. Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th C ir. 2012) (e xpla ining tha t an ALJ m ay “ pe rm issibly

re je c t[ ] . . . c he c k-off re ports that [do] not c o nta in a

ny e xpla nation of theba se s of the ir c onc l usions” ) (a lte rations in origina l) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). The C om m issione r pe rm issibly
re solve d this c onflic t by pla c ing m ore we ight on Appe l la nt’ s orthope d ic
c onsulta tive e xam ination c onduc te d by Dr. Vinc e nt B e rna be
. Se e Andre w

s v . 4Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 1995) (e xpla ining tha t whe re a tre ating phy sic ia n’ s opinion is c ontra d i c te d by an e xam ining profe ssiona l’ s opinion, the C om m issione r m ay

re solve the c onflic t by

re ly ing on thee xam ining phy sic ia n’ s opinion if the

e xam ining phy sic ia

n’ s opinion is supporte d by diffe re nt, inde pe nde nt c linic a l findings). Dr. B e rna be found tha

t Appe lla nt’ s phy s ic a l lim ita tions would lim

it he r to pe rform i ng light work. The ALJ provide d spe c ific , c le a r and c onvinc ing re a s ons, supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , for disc ounting Appe lla nt’ s se lf-re p orte d subje c tive sym ptom s. Tommase tti v . Astrue , 533 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2008). Appe l la nt’ s subje c tive sy

m ptom s we re inte rna lly

inc onsiste nt a

nd unsupporte d by the o bje c t ive m e dic a l e vide nc e . Appe lla nt first rep orte d she ha d no proble m s with
atte ntion a

n d c ould follow instructions we ll, the n just a fe w m onths la

te r c la im e d that she c ould pa

y atte nt ion only

20-30 m inute s and c ould not follow instruc tions
we ll. The re wa s no re porte d c ha nge in he r m e dic a l c ondition to support this
a lle ge d de te rioration. Se e Light v . Soc . Se c . Admin. , 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th C ir. 1997). Appe lla

nt a l so ne ve r re porte d the de gre e of pa in or se v e rity of lim ita tions to he r tre atm e nt provide rs tha t she subje c tive ly

a lle g e d, a

nd som e a lle gations we re unde rm ine d by

he r obje c tive m e dic a l re c ord. S e e Flate n v . Se c ’yof He a lth & Human Se rv

s. , 44 F.3d 1453, 1464 (9th C ir. 1995).
5The ALJ thus pose d a n a ppropria te hy p othe tic a l to the VE tha

t took into
c onside ration only

lim i tations supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . Ose nbroc k v . Apfe l , 240 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th C ir. 2001). AFFIRM E D.

6