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 A. R

ANSTR O M , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35943 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00485-M O
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d

Nove m be r 3, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER , B ER

ZON, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s . R obe rt R anstrom

a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the fina l de c ision of theC om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity de ny ing his a

pplic a tions for disa bility insura nc e be n e fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e . W e a ffirm
.



# FIL ED
N OV 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.Pa ge 2 of 5

1. The a dm inistra

tive la w judge (ALJ) prope rly

c onside re d the opinions a nd
re c o m m e ndations of thee x a m ining psy c hologist, Dr. Linda Fishm an, in finding that R anstrom

wa s not disa

b le d. Dr. Fishm an dia gnose d R anstrom with Aspe rge r’ s disorde r, m a

j or de pre ssive disorde r, an xie ty disorde r, and atte ntion de fic it disorde r,
and opine d tha

t, in light of R

a nstrom ’ s diffic ultie s inte ra c ting with othe rs, he is be st suite d for pre d ic ta

ble , routine work tha

t doe s not involve

signific ant inte ra c tion with othe

rs. The ALJ not only

a c c e p te d Dr. Fishm a

n ’ s dia g nose s a

nd findings, but a

lso ga ve he r opinions “ gre at we ight.” Howe ve r, the ALJ did not fully a d opt Dr. Fishm an’ s re c o m m e nde d e m

ploy m e nt a c c om

m odations. Dr. Fishm an re c om

m e nde d tha

t a ny job provideR a

nstrom with a n on-site support pe rson, a “ priva te , quie t work se tting,” and “ [s] truc ture d, pre dic t a ble job ta sks.” She a lso re c o m

m e nde d tha

t R anstrom

re c e ive “ c le ar ste p by

ste p instruc tions” la rge ly fre e of idiom s or sla ng. The ALJ provide d spe c ific , le g itim a te re a sons tha t a re ba se d on substa

ntia l
e vide nc e in the re c ord for c o n c luding tha t the re stric tive a c c o m

m odat ions
re c o m m e nde d by

Dr. Fishm an we re unne c e ssa ry . Se e M

organ v . C

omm’r of Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th C ir. 1999). As the ALJ note d, the we i ght of the e vide n c e unde rm ine d Dr. Fishm an’ s position. Two c e rtifie d disa bility
c onsulta nts indepe nde ntly re vie we d R anstrom ’ s re c ords a nd c onc l ude d tha

t,Pa ge 3 of 5

c ontra ry to wha t Dr. Fishm a

n found, R anstrom

ha d only m ode ra t e diffic ultie s inte ra c ting soc ia lly

and only m ode ra te trouble c onc e ntrating. R anstrom and his two room m a te s te stifie d

tha t he wa s a ble to m a inta in prope r hy g ie ne , shop for food, pre pa

re m e a ls, a

nd visit with frie

n ds a nd fam ily . R anstrom

ha d a lso be e n
a ble to hold down jobs pre viously without the

a c c om m odations Dr. Fishm an re c o m m e nde d, a

nd he m a inta i n e d ne ar-pe rfe c t gra de s in c olle ge while a lso working a s a

c are tak e r part-tim e . In light of tha t e vide n c e , the ALJ did not e rr in de pa rting from

Dr. Fishm an’ s re c om

m e n da tions. Se e id. a t

600–01. Nor did the ALJ e rr in not spe c ific a lly a ddre ssing Dr. Fishm an’ s c ontra ry re sidua l func tiona l
c a pa c ity (RFC ) a sse ssm e nt, of whic h the ALJ— who disc usse d Dr. Fishm an’ s re port a t le ngth— wa s undoubte dly

aware . Se e M

agallane s v . Bow e n , 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th C ir. 1989). 2. The ALJ prope rly

c onside re d a ll of R a

nstrom ’ s m e n ta l a

nd phy sic a l lim ita tions, a nd the ALJ’ s R

FC a c c om

m odate d a ll of the lim ita

tions the ALJ found
c re d ible
. R anstrom argue s tha t the ALJ fa ile d to c o nside r the e ffe c ts of stre ss on his a bility to work. B ut the ALJ—

re ly i ng on the opinions of Dr. Ande rson a nd Dr. R e thinge r, who re v ie we d

R anstrom ’ s m e dic a l file , a nd the witne ss te stim ony de sc ribe d a

bove

— disbe lie ve d t

ha t R anstrom ’ s im

p a irm e nts we re a s se ve re a s hePa ge 4 of 5

c la im e d, a

nd substa ntia l e vide nc e supports tha t finding. Se e Rollins v . Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 856–57 (9th C i r. 2001); M agallane s , 881 F.2d a

t 750. 3. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t R anstrom

ha s the RFC to pe rform

work tha t e x ists in the

na tiona l e c onom

y . The voc a tiona l e xpe rt (VE) te s tifie d tha

t R anstrom

ha s the re quisite R

FC to work a s a

ha nd pa c k a ge r or la undry worke r. R anstrom

argue s tha

t the de s c riptions for those jobs in the Dic tiona ry of Oc c upationa l Title s (DOT) c onflic t with his R FC and the lim i tations give n in the ALJ’ s hy

pothe t ic a l. W e disa gre e . B oth positions the

VE ide ntifie d c orre spond to DOT’ s Ge ne ra l Educ a tiona l De ve lopm e nt R e a soning Le v e l 2, whic h e nta ils the a b ility to “ [a ] pply
c om m onse nse unde rsta

nding to c arry

out de ta ile d but uninvolve d writte n or ora l instruc tions,” and the a

bility to “ [d] e a l with proble m s involving a fe w c o nc re te
va ria ble s in or from

sta nda rdiz e d situa

tions.” DOT § 920.587–018, 1991 W L 687916 (ha

nd pa c ka ge r); § 302.685–010, 1991 W L 672657 (la

undry worke r). The ALJ found tha

t R anstrom

c ould work in job se

ttings tha t de m and the a

bility to follow “ no m ore tha

n short, sim

ple instruc tions a

nd proc e dure s” and re quire “ no
m ore tha n sim ple de c i sion-m a king on thepa rt of the c la im ant.” The re is no
a ppre c ia ble diffe re nc e be twe e n the a bility to m a ke sim

ple de c isions ba se d

on

“ short, sim

ple instruc tions” and the a bility to use c om

m onse nse unde rsta

nding toPa ge 5 of 5

c arry out “ de ta ile d but uninv olv e d . . . instruc tions,” whic h is wha t R e a soning Le ve l 2 re quire s. Se e Zav alin v . C olv in , 778 F.3d 842, 847 (9th C ir. 2015). Thus, the re is no a c tua l c onflic t be twe e n R anstrom ’ s R FC and the DOT. That c onc lusion fore c lose s R anstrom ’ s Ste p Five c ha lle nge . An ALJ’ s fa ilure to inquire into a

n a ppa re nt c onflic t is ha

rm le ss whe re , a s he re , the re is no
a c tua l c onflic t be twe e n the R FC and the DOT. Se e Massac h i v . Astrue , 486 F.3d 1149, 1154 n.19 (9th C ir. 2007); c f. Rounds v
. C

omm’r of Soc
. Se c . Admin. , 795 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th C ir. 2015). AFFIRM E D.