NO T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT DANIEL B ERR

Y, 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. 13-36108 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01494-M JP 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 M arsha J. Pe c hm an, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

8, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : TASHIM A a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd KOB AYASHI, * * Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED JUL 26 2016 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.

** The Honora

ble Le slie E. Koba

y a shi, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion.Pla intiff-Appe lla nt Da n ie l B e rry (“ B e rry ” ) a

p pe a ls the orde r a dopting the m a gistra te judge ’ s re port a

nd re c om m e ndation to a ffirm

the de c ision of De fe nda

ntAppe l le e C aroly

n W . C olvin, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion (“ the C o m

m issione r” ), to de ny

soc ia l se c urity

disa bility be ne fits and supple m e nta l se c urity inc om e be ne fits. First, we de c line to a ddre ss B e rry ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the a d m i nistra tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) e rre d in fa iling to give him notic e tha

t, in orde r to prove tha

t he c ould not re turn to his pa st re le v ant work, heha d to submi t writte n doc um e ntation that he pre viously he ld a

c om m e rc ia l drive r’ s lic e nse (“ C D L” ) and tha t his la st e m ploy e r re quire d him to ha v e a C DL. W e will not re ve rse an ALJ’ s de c ision ba se d on a

le ga l e rror tha

t is ha rm le ss. Tre ic hle r v. C om m ’ r of Soc . Se c . Adm in., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th C ir. 2014). Eve n a ssum ing, argue n do , tha t the ALJ e rre d in fa iling to give

B e rry notic e of those re quire m e nts, thee rror wa s ha rm le ss be c a use the ALJ found a

t ste p four tha

t B e rry c ould not re turn to his pa st re le va nt work a s a c ourie r drive r – a s he pre viously pe rform e d it – be c a

use he c ould not pe rform the e xe rtion re quire m e nts of theposition. Se e M olina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012) (de s c ribing thefive -ste p se que ntia l e va luation to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r a c la im ant is disa

ble d ).

2Se c ond, the e vide n c e tha t B e rry pre se nte d to theAppe a ls C ounc il – whic h the C om m issione r ha s not re fute d – suffic e s to show for purpose s of this c a se tha t any pe rson who is ta

king na rc otic pa in m e d i c ation c annot work a s a c o m m e rc ia l drive r, e ve n if the position doe s not re quire a C DL. The ALJ the re fore e rre d in c onc luding a

t ste p four tha

t B e rry c ould still pe

rform his pa st re le v ant work a s a c ourie r drive r, a s tha

t job wa s pe rform e d

in the nationa l e c onom

y . Howe ve r, the e rror is ha

rm le ss be c a

use o f the ALJ’ s a l te rnat ive ste p five finding tha t the re we re othe r jobs whic h e xiste d in signific ant num be rs in the nationa l e c onom y tha t B e rry c ould pe rform . Third, theALJ did not err in a dopting the pre vious findings re ga

rding B e rry ’ s re sidua l func t iona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) be c a

use : 1) the ALJ ga

ve

“ pe rsua sive , spe c ific , [and] va lid re a sons . . . tha t [we re ] supporte d by the re c ord” for disc ounting the

Ve t e ran’ s Adm inistra

tion’ s disa

bility de te rm ination; se e B e rry v. Astrue , 622 F.3d 1228, 1236 (9th C ir. 2010); 2) a lthough this C o urt’ s prior opinion he ld tha

t the ALJ on re m and m ay re c onside r B e rry ’ s R

FC , it did not re quire the ALJ to do so; id. a t 1234-35; a

nd 3) the re le va

nt le ga l a uthority supports the

ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t B e rry ’ s ina

bility to pa ss a drug te st would not pre c lude him

from pe rform ing the othe r jobs tha t the voc at iona l e xpe rt (“ VE” ) te stifie d he ha d the R

FC to pe rform . 3Fina lly , we de c line to c onside r B e rry ’ s a rgum e nt – ra ise d for the first tim e at ora l argum e nt – re ga

rding thesuffic ie nc y

of the VE’ s te stim ony

a b out thenum

be r of jobs in the nat iona l e c o nom y tha t the VE te stifie d we re within B e rry ’ s R FC . Se e Pa dge tt v. W

right, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM ED.

4