N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OC HELLE N. KAW ELO,

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. 16-16302 D.C . No. 1:15-c v-00223-DKW -KSC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii De rric k Ka

ha la W atson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

3, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TR OTT, SILVER M AN, a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s. R oc he lle Ka

we lo a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s a ffirm anc e of the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation 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



# FIL ED
M AY07 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.

* * 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).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 42 U.S.C . § 405(g). W e re vie w de novo, A ttmore v . C olv in , 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th C ir. 2016), a nd we a ffirm
. I Kawe lo c la im s tha

t the ALJ e rre d at Ste p Four of the fam ilia r se q ue ntia l proc e s s 1 by

m iside ntify ing he r “ pa st re le va nt work” (“ PR

W ” ). She c la im s tha

t he r pa st re le va

nt work wa s sole ly

a s a c ustom e r se rvic e re pre se ntative (“ C SR ” ) for a ba nk, a nd tha t a nything e l se she did wa s pa rt a nd pa rc e l of tha

t singlec om

p osite job. B a se d prim arily

on he r own te stim ony , howe ve r, the ALJ de te rm ine d tha t she ha d the re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) to pe rform

work a s (1) a

bookke e pe r
and (2) a loa n offic e r, work whic h she ha d done for the ba nk. Kawe lo’ s own words re ve a l tha t she ha d distinc t ly

pe rform e d both dispute d jobs for he r e m

ploy e r. Whe n a ske d a

bout he r pa s t work a

t the First Ha

w a iia n B ank (“ B ank” ), she sa id,

Oh, m y gosh. I’ v e be e n with theba nk for 39 y e ars, a

nd I think I did it a

ll, from bookke e ping, up to be ing a te lle r, up to be ing a C SR , a

nd up to be ing a

loa n offic e r. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e in the re c ord supports the ALJ’ s c la ssific ation of he r PR W a s a loa n offic e r, but not a s a

bookke e p e r. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e “ is suc h

1 20 C .F.R . § 404.1520. 1 6
- 1 6 3 0 2 2re le va

nt e vide nc e a s a

re a sona ble m ind m ight a c c e pt a s a d e quate to support a
c onc lusion.” Sandgathe v . C hate r , 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th C ir. 1997).

A. The im pe d im e n t to c onside ring he r bookke e ping work for theB ank a s PR W ste m s from

20 C .F.R . § 404.1560(b)(1). Tha t re gula tion de fine s “ pa st re l e va

nt work” a s “ work tha

t y ou ha ve done within the

pa st 15 y e a

rs, tha t wa s substa

ntia l ga inful a c tivity , a

nd tha t la ste d long e n ough for y ou to le a rn to do it. (Se e § 404.1565(a).)” In turn, 20 C
. F.R . § 404.1565(a ) sa y s, W e do not usually

c onside r that work y ou did 15 y e ars or m ore be fore the tim e we are de c i ding whe the r y o u a re disa ble d . . . a pplie s. A gra d

ua l c ha nge oc c urs in m ost jobs so tha

t a fte r 15 y e ars it is no longe r re a listic to e xpe c t tha

t skills a nd a bilitie s a c quire d in a

job donethe n c ontinue to a

pply
. The 15-y e ar guide is inte nde d to e nsure tha

t re m ote work e xpe rie nc e is not c urre ntly a pplie d
. Kawe lo’ s work e xc lusive ly a s a bookke e p e r for the B a

nk be ga n in 1969 a

nd la ste d for “ a

y e ar or two a

t the m ost. It c ould ha

ve be e n longe r. I’ m

not sure .” The e vide ntia

ry re c ord a s to he r ac tual

bookke e ping work for theB a nk a fte r 1971— forty -se ve n y e ars in the dista nt pa st— is utte rly

sile nt. The C om m issione r re lie s on thre e c irc um sta nc e s to ove rc om e this proble m : (1) he r bookke e p e r work at hom e for he r husba nd a fte r she re tire d be twe e n 2009

1 6
- 1 6 3 0 2 3and 2011, (2) he r fa ile d post-re tire m e nt a pplic ation for a bookke e pe r position a t a
re sta uran t, a n d (3) the bookke e ping skills she a c quire d while working a t the B ank, whic h the C o m

m issione r argue s pre sum

ptive ly re m a in via

ble a lm ost fifty

y e ars late r. The C om

m issione r’ s first a

rgum e nt fa ils be c a

use , a s the ALJ c orre c tly

sa i d,

“ I’ m n ot going to c onside r [he r work at hom e a s he r husba nd’ s bookke e pe r] a s . . .
any pa s t work.” The C om

m issione r’ s se c o nd a

rgum e n t fa

re s no be tte r. Ka

w e lo’ s faile d atte m

pts to se c ure a

job a s a bookke e pe r is not substa ntia l e vide n c e tha

t she
wa s c a pa b le of doing thework, quitepossibly to the c ontra

ry . Fina lly , it stra ins
c re d ulity to be lie ve tha

t bookke e ping skills ac quire d in a pre -c om pute r e ra qua lify
a pe rson to pe rform

tha t job de c a de s la

te r in a post-c om

pute r world. Unlikea

skill like driving a

m otor ve hic l e , bookke e ping is a skill like l y

to be lost with the pa ssa ge of the am ount of tim e involve d in this c a se . The tra nsc ript of Ka

we lo’ s he aring de m onstra

te s tha t this issue wa s not a de q

uate ly fle she d out. B .

1 6
- 1 6 3 0 2 4As to Ka we lo’ s work a s a

loa n offic e r, howe v e r, the re c ord is re ple te with
re lia ble substa n tia l re le va

nt e vide nc e from

he r te s tim ony 2 tha

t am p ly supports the ALJ’ s finding:

Q [ALJ to Ka

we lo] W a s the re e ve r a

c irc um sta

n c e whe n y o u did just the

job of loa

n offic e r? It sounds like what y ou’ re sa

y ing is tha

t y ou did, like , a c om bina tion of a ll the se dutie s. A [Kawe lo] Exa c tly . I did. As a loa n -- Q And -- A -- offic e r, y e s, the re wa s a tim e whe re I c ould just be a ble to sit a

t m y de sk, ta ke in loa n a p plic ations, spe ak with the c ustom e rs, a nd do wha

t I ne e de d to do for tha t loa n. Ye s. Q Now, how long did y ou do tha t , whe re tha

t wa s a ll y o u did, whic h is loa

n offic e r job? A W e ll, it c am e with thejob title . W ith the C SR , we -- y ou know, theba

nk -- like I sa id, the ba

nk ha d c ha nge d, so be ing a

C SR , we ha d to do both. W e ha d to [do] loa

n a pplic ations, bea

loa n offic e r, a s we ll a s be a

C SR and ope n ba

nk a c c ounts for c ustom e rs. W e ha d to do it all. It wa sn’ t just -- Q W a s the re --

2 Se e Matthe w

s v . Shalala , 10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th C ir. 1993) (in de te rm i ning a

c la im ant’ s a

bility to pe rform

spe c ific jobs, a

c la im ant’ s own te stim ony is “ highly

probative ” ). 1 6
- 1 6 3 0 2

5A -- spe c ific a lly just a loa n offic e r a

nd a C SR . W e ha d to do it -- it wa s pa

rt of m y job to do it a

ll. Kawe lo c urre ntly

ta ke s issue with theALJ’ s a n d the Voc at iona l Expe rt’ s (“ VE” ) unc ha lle nge d c la ssific ation of he r work a s a loa n offic e r a s se pa

ra ble PR W , arguing tha

t a c ting a s a

loa n offic e r wa s only

pa rt of he r c om

posite job a s a

C SR
. W e disa gre e . The Dic tiona ry of Oc c upationa l Title s (“ DOT” ) re c ogniz e s “ loa n offic e r” a s be longing to a se pa ra te and distinc t

c l a ssific ation. DOT C ode 241.367- 018. M ore ove r, Kawe l o’ s c ounse l did not dire c t a ny que stions of his own to the VE on this issue

or m ak e any

atte m pt to e s ta blish tha t Ka we lo’ s B ank work she de sc ribe d a s tha

t of a “ loa n offic e r” did not c orre spond to the re le va nt DOT
c la ssific ation. Se e Bay l iss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ An ALJ m ay ta ke a d m inistra tive notic e of a

ny re lia ble job inform ation, inc luding inform at ion provide d by

a VE.” ). Kawe lo’ s atte m

p t to c ha ra c te riz e the ALJ’ s PR

W loa n offic e r finding a s irre c onc i la

ble with our holding in Vale nc ia v . He c k le r , 751 F.2d 1082 (9th C ir. 1985), is unc onvinc ing. As thedistric t c o urt prope rly c onc lude d, Vale nc ia is distinguisha

b le . In Vale nc ia , the ALJ ba se d his PR W de te rm inat ion on a

single func tion in a

n ove ra ll m ore taxing job. Here , Ka we lo’ s pe rform anc e a s a

loa n offic e r wa s not m e re ly

a c o m pone nt pa rt of he r job a s a

C SR . He r pa st work a

t the

1 6
- 1 6 3 0 2 6B ank e nc om pa sse d “ loa

n offic e r” a s a

se pa ra te ide ntifia

ble oc c upation, not just a ta sk a s a C SR . In sum

m a ry , he re the ALJ did not c la s sify Ka we lo’ s PR

W

“ a c c ording to the

le a st de m anding func tion of [he r] pa st oc c upations.” Id. at 1086.

I I Kawe lo a sse rts tha

t the ALJ im

prope rly re je c te d c onsulting e xam ine r Dr. Donova n ’ s m e dic a l findings of me nta l lim ita tions a nd inste a d ga

ve undue we ight to the opinion of Dr. B rode , a non-e xam ining m e dic a l c onsulta nt who re vie we d Kawe l o’ s file . The distric t c ourt disse c te d this issue in gre at de ta il a

nd re je c te d Kawe l o’ s a

rgum e nt a s unsupporte d by the re c ord. W ithout e la

b oration, we a gre e with thedistric t c ourt: The ALJ’ s re a sons for giving Dr. Donova n’ s opinion

“ lim ite d we ight” we re spe c i fic , le gitim ate , a nd supporte d by

the e vide ntia

ry re c ord. To quote the ALJ,

I give Dr. Donova

n’ s opinion lim

ite d we ight. His a sse ssm e nt is ba se d in la

rge pa rt on thec la im ant’ s subje c tive re porting whic h is not e ntire ly supporte d by the re c ord. For e xam

ple , the c l a im ant told Dr. Donova n she c ould not bala

nc e he r c he c kbook a

t hom e or ha

ndle he r fina n c ia l a ffa i rs, but shefa ile d to te ll him

tha t she ha d be e n m ana ging thebooks for he r husba nd’ s busine ss. Furthe r, he r bre a dth of da ily a c tivity and la c k of m e nta l he a lth tre atm e nt de m onstra te tha t the c la im ant’ s m e n ta l im pa irm e nt is nonse ve re .

1 6
- 1 6 3 0 2 7Ac c ordingly , we find no fa ult with the ALJ’ s ultim ate de te rm ination of Kawe l o’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ), a

c a pa c ity whic h wa s c onsiste nt with thede m a

nds of a position a s a

loa n offic e r. Conc lusion The ALJ did not err in de te rm ining tha t Ka w e lo pe rform e d the work of a loa n offic e r for the B a

nk, work tha

t wa s suffic ie nt to m a

ke it he r PRW . The ALJ’ s de te rm i nation of he r RFC wa s a ppropria te , a s wa s he r de te rm ination tha t Ka we lo
c ould do thework. The ALJ’ s e rror in de te rm ining tha t Ka we lo’ s PR

W inc lude d bookke e ping wa s ha

rm le ss. Se e Lind v . Astrue , 370 F. App’ x 814, 817 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ Any

e rror by the ALJ in c onside ring jobs tha t did not qua

lify a s pa st
re le va nt work wa s ha

rm le ss be c a

use the ALJ found tha

t Lind c ould pe rform

he r pa st re le va

nt work a s a

c u stom e r se rvic e re pre se ntative , a n d the a bility to pe rform
one of he r pa s t jobs is suffic ie nt to m e e t the sta n da rd.” ); Braw ne r v . Se c ’y of He alth &Human Se r

v s. , 839 F.2d 432, 434 (9th C ir. 1988) (pe r c uriam ) (holding that ALJ’ s e rror in c la ssify i ng pa st re le v a n t work a s “ light” wa s inc o nse q ue ntia l

1 6
- 1 6 3 0 2 8whe re the re c ord supporte d the ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha t the c la im ant wa s a

ble to pe rform othe r light work a nd the re fore wa s not disa

ble d). 3 AFFIRM E D.

3 W e re gre t

c ounse l ’ s m isim

pre ssion tha

t “ Soc ia l Se c urity

a djudic ations are t he le a st like d ” am ong the m e m be rs of the Ninth C irc uit. Eve ry c a se no m atte r what the subje c t m atte r re c e ive s the thoughtful a tte ntion of our c ourt. 1 6
- 1 6 3 0 2 9