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 OB ER T HOWARD GASTON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF SOC IAL SEC UR ITY ADM INISTR ATION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-35818 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00339-JE
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon John Je lde rks, M a g istra

te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

M ay 14, 2014 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, TASHIM A, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
JUN 06 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. C O 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. ** On M arc h

27, 2014, the

pa ne l gra nte d Appe lla

nt’ s unoppose d m otion to wa ive ora l a

rgum e nt a nd submit this c a se on the brie fs. Fe d . R . App. P. 34(a )(2).R obe rt Howa rd Ga s ton a

ppe a ls from

a distric t c o urt judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s fina l de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for Soc ia l Se c urity Disa bility be ne fits a

n d Supple m e nta l Se c urity Inc om e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e a ffirm
. I Ga ston se e ks re vie w of the ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha t, se pa rate ly or ta ke n toge the r, his se ve re im

p a irm e nts did not me e t or m e d ic a lly e qua l Listing 1.02A (m a jor dy sfunc tion of a

joint). To be

de te rm ine d to be pre s um ptive l y disa

ble d, Ga ston ne e de d to show e ithe r that one or m ore of his im pa irm e nts me e ts a ll of the
c ha ra c te ristic s of Listing 1.02A or tha t his sy m ptom s a nd the m e d ic a l e v ide nc e de m onstra

te tha t one or m ore of his im

pa irm e nts e quals the c ha

ra c t e ristic s of a
re le va nt liste d im

pa irm e nt. Tac k

e tt v
. Apfe l , 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th C ir. 1999). The ALJ’ s de te rm ination tha t Ga ston fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t his kne e im pa irm e nt m e e t s e a c h of the c ha ra c te ristic s for Listing 1.02A is supported by substa ntia l e vide nc e , inc luding m e dic a l e vide nc e showing tha t Ga ston ha d full
range of m otion in his kne e s . Id. at 1099–1100. Additiona lly , a lthough the
c ha ra c te ristic s of Listing 1.02A re quire “ findings on a ppropria t e m e dic a lly
a c c e pta b le im a ging of joint spa

c e na rrowing, bony

de struc tion, or a

nky losis of the
a ffe c te d joint(s),”20 C .F.R . pt. 404, subpt. P, a pp. 1, § 1.02A, the

re c ord doe s not
2inc l ude suc h findings. Ac c ordingly , the ALJ did not err in c onc luding tha t Ga ston’ s kne e im

pa irm e nt doe s not m e e t Listing 1.02A. M ore ove r, a lthough the ALJ’ s c onc lusion re ga

rding them e dic a l e quiva le nc e of Ga ston’ s im pa i rm e nts wa s sta te d in a sum m ary fa s hion, theALJ wa s not re q uire d to providean in-de pth
e quiva le nc y

ana l y sis be c a

use Ga ston did not pre se nt m e dic a l e vide nc e showing that his kne e im

p a irm e nt, or his shoulde

r and kne e im

pa i rm e nts ta

ke n toge the r,
m e dic a l ly e qua l Listing 1.02A or a

ny othe r listing. Burc h v . Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th C ir. 2005). I I Ga ston a lso c ha l le nge s the ALJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination
re ga rding his te stim ony

a bout these ve rity

of his sy m ptom s . Whe re a

c l a im ant produc e s m e dic a l e vide n c e of a n im pa irm e nt tha

t is re a s ona

bly e xpe c te d to produc e som e de gre e of the sym ptom s a lle ge d, “ and the re is no e vide nc e of
m a linge ring, ‘ the ALJ c an re j e c t the c la im a

nt’ s te stim ony

a b out the se ve rity

of he r sym ptom s only

by offe ring spe c ific , c le ar, and c onvinc ing re a sons for doing so.’ ” Linge n fe lte r v . Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting Smole n v . C hate r , 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th C ir. 1996)). He re , the ALJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination wa s ba se d on unc onte ste d obje c tive m e dic a l e v ide nc e tha t is inc onsiste nt with Ga ston’ s a lle gations of

3disa

bling le ve ls of pa in. Se e Rollins v . Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ While subje c tive pa in te stim ony c annot be re

je c te d on the sole ground tha t it is not fully

c orroborate d by

obje c tive m e d ic a l e vide nc e , the m e dic a l e vide nc e is still a re l e va nt fa c tor in de te rm i ning the se ve rity of the c la im ant’ s pa in a

nd its disa bling e ffe c ts.” ). Additionally , the ALJ c onside re d the le v e l of Ga ston’ s da ily
a c tivitie s a s a

ground for disc ounting his te s tim ony re ga rding theinte nsity

and
e ffe c ts of his pain to thee xte nt tha t it wa s inc onsiste nt with the ALJ’ s R e sidua l Func tiona l C a

p a c ity a sse ssm e nt. This is a

spe c ific and pe rm issiblec onside ration supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord. Se e Burc h , 400 F.3d a t 681 (“ The ALJ wa s pe rm itte d to c onside r da ily living a c tivitie s in his c re dibility ana ly sis.” ). III Ga ston a dva

nc e s thre e argum e nts re late d to theALJ’ s de te rm ination tha t the re are a

signific ant num

be r of jobs in the nationa l e c onom y tha t Ga ston c an pe rform
. A First, Ga ston c onte nds tha t the hy pothe tic a l the ALJ pose d to theVoc ationa l Expe rt (“ VE” ) wa s fla

w e d be c a use it did not inc lude a ll of Ga ston’ s re l e va nt lim ita tions. Ga s ton a lso c h a lle nge s the hy pothe tic a l pose d by

the ALJ in tha

t it inc l ude d a

lim ita tion to “ oc c a siona l ove rhe a d re a c hing,” whic h is inc onsiste nt with

4the o pinion of a n e xam ining phy sic ia

n, whose opinion the

ALJ ha d c re dite d, tha

t Ga ston ha d a

lim ite d a b ility to re a c h in a ll dire c tions, inc l uding ove rhe a d.

“ If the a s sum

p tions in the

hy pothe tic a l are not supporte d by the re c ord, the opinion of the

voc ationa l e xpe rt tha

t c la i m ant ha s a re sidua l working c a pa c ity ha s
no e vide n tia

ry va l ue .” Gallant v . He c k le r , 753 F.2d 1450, 1456 (9th C ir. 1984). He re , howe ve r, a ll but oneof the a s sum ptions in the

hy pothe t ic a l the ALJ pose d to the V E we re supporte d by the m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord, a nd the ALJ ha d prope rly disc ounte d Ga ston’ s te stim ony to the e x te nt tha

t it wa s inc onsiste nt with that e vide nc e . Ose nbroc k

v . Apfe l , 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th C ir. 2001). The ALJ’ s fa ilure to inc l ude in the hy pothe tic a l a

lim i tation on re a c h ing in a ll dire c tions wa s ha

rm le ss e rror be c a

use the position of surve illa nc e sy ste m

m onitor, ide n tifie d by

the VE a s a

position Ga ston c ould pe rform , doe s not re quire suc h
a bility
. Se eMatthe w

s v . Shalala , 10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th C ir. 1993) (c onc luding tha t

“ [w] he t he r or not theALJ e rre d in not inc luding a ll of [the c la im ant’ s] lim i tations in a hy pothe t i c a l,” suc h e rror wa s ha rm le ss whe re the e x c l ude d lim ita tion “wa s n ot
re le v ant in de c iding whe the r [the c la im ant] c o uld pe rform his pa s t work a s a
re c e iving c le rk/inspe c tor” ); se e also Dic tionary of Oc c upational Title

s § 379.367–010 (4th e d. 1991) (de sc ribing re quire m e nts for position of surve illa nc e sy ste m m onitor).

5B

Se c ond, Ga ston m a i nta ins tha t, with 1,240 jobs in the

loc a l e c o n om

y and 142,000 jobs in the

nationa l e c onom

y , the position of surve illa nc e sy ste m

m onitor doe s not e xist in signific ant num be rs to support a

c o nc lusion tha

t Ga ston is c a

pa ble of m aking a

suc c e ssful a djustm e nt to other ava ila ble work. The re is no bright-line te st to de te rm ine what c onstitute s a “ signific ant
num be r” of jobs in the

loc a l or na

tiona l e c o nom

y . Gutie rre

z v . C omm’r of Soc

. Se c . , 740 F.3d 519, 528 (9th C ir. 2014). W e have , howe ve r, uphe ld the C om m issione r’ s findings ba se d on a sim i la r num be r of jobs be ing a

va ila ble in the loc a l a n d nationa l e c o nom i e s. Se e , e .g. , Thomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 960 (9th C ir. 2002) (1,300 jobs in Ore gon c onstitute d signific ant work); Me ane l v

. Apfe l , 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th C ir. 1999) (1,000 to 1,500 jobs in the loc a l a re a
a lone wa s signific ant); Bark e r v . Se c ’yof HHS, 882 F.2d 1474, 1478–79 (9th C ir. 1989) (1,266 jobs in the

Los Ange le s/Ora

n ge C ounty , C a lifornia

are a “ within the pa ram e t e rs of ‘ signific a

nt num b e rs’ ” found in other c a se s). The re fore , the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t the re e xist a

signific a nt num b e r of jobs Ga ston c o uld pe rform is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . C

6Third, Ga s ton a rgue s for the first tim e on a ppe a l tha t the VE’ s te stim ony

is
unre lia ble be c a use the Dic tiona

ry of Oc c upationa l Title s c o de she c ite d during he r te stim ony is for a surve illa nc e sy ste m s m onitor in public transporta tion te rm ina ls, but the position she de sc ribe d in he r te stim ony wa s for the oc c upation in a re ta il
se tting. T his c la im

ha s be e n forfe ite d, howe ve r, be c a use Ga ston fa ile d to ra ise it be fore the distric t c o urt. Se e Gre ge r v . Barnhart , 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th C ir. 2006) (re fe re nc ing “ the ge ne ra l rule tha t the c o urt will not c onside r an issue ra ise d for the first tim e on a

ppe a l” ). AFFIRM E D.

7