T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J A M ES STU BBS, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. SOCI AL SE CURI TY AD MI NI S T R AT I ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 36098 D. C . No . 6 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 6 9 1 - HO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M i c ha e l R . H oga n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 7, 2011 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: T H O M A S , G R A B E R , an dT A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a m e s S tubbs appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on uphol di ng the C o m m i ssi o n er o f S o ci al S ecu ri ty’ s d en i al o f h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i sab i l i ty b en efi t s. 

# FI LED MA R 09 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

W e affi rm . B ecau se th e p art i es are fam i l i ar w i th th e fact s o f th e case, w e d i scu ss the m onl ya s ne c e s s a ryt o e xpl a i n ourde c i s i on. I T he adm i ni stra t i ve l aw j ud ge’ s ( A L J) concl usi on thatS tub bs’ m i grai nes w e r e n o t s e v e r e is s u p p o rte d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See V al ent i ne v. C om m ’r Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 5 7 4 F . 3 d 6 8 5 , 6 9 0 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). C o n trary t o S tu b b s’ a r gum e nt , the “ unr e m a rkabl e ” C T s c a n w a s notthe A L J ’ s pr i m a ryba s i s f or c o n c lu d in g th a t h is m ig r a in e s w e r e n o n - s e v e r e . T h e A L Jw a s n o t r e q u ir e dto c ons i de rthe a ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e S tubbs poi nt s t o on appe a l be c aus e i tw a s not “s ig n if ic a n t p r o b a tiv e ” e v id e n c e . V i ncent exre l. V i ncent v. H ec kler , 739 F . 2d 1 3 9 3 , 1 3 9 4

– 9 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ; se e a l so H o w a rd ex rel . W

o l f f v. B a rn h a rt , 341 F . 3d 1006, 1012 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . T he A L Jdi s c us s e d S tubbs ’ i m pa i rm e nt s — i nc l udi ng hi s m i gr a i ne s — i n gr e a tde t a i l , a nd th e reco rd su g g est s th atth e A L J co n si d ered th e co m b i n ed effects of allo f S tu b b s’ im p a irm e n ts . L om ba rdo v. Schw eike r , 74 9 F . 2d 56 5, 56 7 (9th C i r. 19 84 ) ( per curi am ). I I T h e A L J ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t S tu b b s d idn o t m e e t o re q u a l ad is ab ilitylis tin g is a ls o s u p p o rte d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See V ale nt i ne , 574 F . 3d a t690; 2 0 C. F. R.3

pt . 404, s ubpt . P . , app. 1. I n c onc l udi ng tha tS tubbs di d notm e e tore qua l L i s t i ng 1. 04 , the A L J e xp re ss l y c on si dere d the N ov em ber 200 2 M R I. H ow ever , nei ther th e A u g u s t 2 0 0 1 M R I n o rD r . O g is u ’s e x a m in a tio n w e r e s ig n if ic a n t o rp r o b a tiv e . H o w a rd ex r e l. W

o lff , 341 F . 3d a t1012. M or e ove r , S tubbs ha s notof f e r e d a pl ausi bl e theory a s t o h ow the com bi nat i on of m ent al and p hysi ca l i m pai rm ent s ( as o p p o s e d to ju s t h is m e n ta l im p a irm e n ts ) m e e t o re q u a l L is tin g 1 2 .0 4 o r1 2 .1 0 . See L ew is v . Apf

el , 236 F . 3d 503, 514 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . A s ar e s ul t , the A L Jw a s not re qu i re d t o exp re ss l y c on si der w hether the com bi nat i on of m ent al and p hysi ca l im p a irm e n ts m e t o re q u a le d th e s e tw o lis tin g s . B u rch v. B a rn h a rt , 400 F . 3d 676, 68 3 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). II I T h e A L J ’s v o c a tio n a l f

in d in g s a r e s up p o rte db ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . V ale nt i ne , 57 4 F . 3d at69 0. T he A L J a dequ at el y des cr i bed the hypo thet i ca l cl ai m antt o the vo ca t i on al expert . B oth the A L J and S tub bs’ att orney di sc usse d m a n yo f th e lim ita tio n s th a t S tu b b s c la im s w e r e o m itte d . H e has no texpl ai ned h o w a n ya l l e g e d l yo mi tt e d l i mi t a t i o n s wo u l dh a v e c h a n g e dth e o u t c o me . Th e ALJ c onc l ude d tha tS tubbs c oul d po ss i bl y engage i n “ l i gh tw ork”— generalcl er i ca l w o rk . T o the e xt e nttha tthe A L Je rr e d i n notm a ki ng s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng hi s tr a ns f e rr abl e s ki l l s , tha te rr orw a s ha rm l e s s be c aus e the A L Jc onc l ude d S tubbs4

c oul d a l s o pe r f

orm uns ki l l e d w ork a s a n a ddr e s s e r , w hi c h e xi s t s i n s i gni f i c a nt n u m b e r s in th e n a tio n a l a n d lo c a l e c o n o m y . T h o m a s v. B a rn h a rt , 278 F . 3d 947, 9 6 0

– 6 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . I V F i na l l y , the A L Jdi d note rri n e xc l udi ng the opi ni ons of D r . H ol m e s a nd C ou nsel or S hi pp and the t es t i m on y of D r. G arri son. T he A L J s etou t“ spec i fi c, le g itim a te r e a s o n s ” f

o rr e je c tin g D r . H o lm e s ’ o p in io n . T h e A L Ja ls o p r o p e r ly di sr egar ded C ou nsel or S hi pp ’ s opi ni on because he w as no tqu al i fi ed t o i ss ue a v o c a tio n a l o p in io n a n d h is o p in io n s w e r e c o n tr a d ic te db yth e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e . L e w is , 236 F . 3d a t511. T h e A L J d idn o t sp ec ifically co n sid erD r. G arriso n ’s te s tim o n y , b u t h e n e ith e rtr e a te d n o re x a m in e dS tu b b s , a n dh is o p in io n a d d e dlittle to th e r e c o r d . T h e A L J ’s f a ilu r e to e x p r e s s lyd is c u s s it w a s h a rm le s s . Stou t v. C om m ’ r, Soc . Se c . A dm i n. , 45 4 F . 3d 10 50 , 10 56 (9th C i r. 20 06 ).

AF F I RME D.