N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANGELIC A ALB AY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-15642 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-00146-AC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Allison C la ire , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 8, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : LUC ER O, *** W . FLETC HER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED DEC 10 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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).

* * * The Honora

ble C arlos F. Luc e ro, Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Ange lic a Alba y a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing 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 pursua

nt to Title II of the Soc i a l Se c urity Ac t . She argue s tha t (1) the Adm inistra

tive La w Judge ’ s (ALJ) findings re g a rding he r m e n ta l he a lth
we re not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e ; (2) the ALJ e rre d in not finding he r disa ble d unde r R

ule 202.09 of theM e dic a l-Voc ationa l Guide line s; a nd (3) the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t s he c a n pe rform othe r work e xisting in signific ant num be rs in the nationa l e c onom

y wa s im prope r and not supporte d by substa ntia l e v i de nc e . The ALJ’ s c onc l usions re ga rding Alba

y ’ s m e nta l he a lth we re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . “ Substa

ntia l e vide n c e is suc h re le va nt e vide nc e a s a
re a s ona ble m ind m ight a c c e pt a s a de quate to support a c onc lusion.” P arra v . Astrue , 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th C ir. 2007). It is “ m ore tha n a m e re sc intilla ,” but

“ m ay be le ss tha

n a pre ponde ranc e .” Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110-11 (9th C ir. 2012). TheALJ c o n c lude d tha t Alba y is c a p a b le of work involving sim ple ta sks a

nd lim ite d inte ra c tion with othe rs ba se d on the opinions of Dr. B owe rm an a

nd Dr. C o ve y , a s we ll a s othe r m e dic a l profe s siona ls. Am ong othe r
m e nta l lim ita

tions, Dr. B owe rm an found tha t Alba y is only m i ldly im

p a ire d in he r
a bility to c arry out sim p l e ta sks a

nd m ode ra te l y

im pa ire d in he r a

bility to re spond
a ppropria te ly to c o-worke rs. In he r ana ly sis of Dr. B owe rm a n’ s findings, Dr.
2C ove y

sta te d tha t Alba y is not lim

ite d in he r a

bility to follow sim

ple instruc tions
and is a ble to a sk sim

ple que stions, re que st a ssista nc e , an d ge t a l ong with c oworke rs. Dr. C ove y

tra nsla te d Dr. B owe rm an’ s findings into c onc re te lim ita tions of Alba y ’ s func tiona l c a

pa c ity , a nd the ALJ a

p p ropriate ly

inc lude d those lim its in the re sidua l func tiona l c a

p a c ity
. Se e Stubbs-Danie lson v . Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th C ir. 2008). TheALJ wa s justifie d in re ly ing on this evide nc e and othe r
m e dic a l sourc e e vide nc e in re a c hing his c onc lusions. 20 C .F.R . § 404.1527. The ALJ a lso did not err in not finding Alba y disa ble d unde r R ule 202.09 of the M e dic a l-Voc ationa l Guide line s. R ule 202.09 a

pplie s to individua

ls who a re (1)
ra pidly a p proa c hing a dva

nc e d a ge , (2) illite ra t e or una ble to c om

m unic ate in English, a nd (3) ha v e an unskille d work history or no pa st work e xpe rie nc e . 20 C .F.R . pt. 404, subpt. P, a pp. 2, § 202.09. Alba

y doe s not m e e t the latte r two
c rite ria . R e ga

rding the se c ond c rite rion, the re is substa ntia l e vide nc e tha

t Alba y ’ s pa st work re quire d English profic ie nc y , a nd Alba y te stifie d tha

t she wa s a

b le to
c om m unic ate in English. R

e ga rding the third c rite rion, Alba y ha s pa st skille d work e xpe rie n c e a s the a c t ivitie s dire c t or at a nursing hom e . Ac c ordingly , R ule 202.09 did not re quire a

finding of disa

bility
. Fina lly , the ALJ’ s de t e rm ination tha t Alba y c an pe rform

othe r work e xisting in signific ant num

be rs in the nationa l e c onom y wa s prope r and supporte d by
3substa

ntia l e vide nc e . In de te rm ining whe the r a c l a im ant c an pe rform

othe r work,

“ the ALJ m ay

re l y on the de c i s iona l grids liste d at 20 C .F.R . Part 404, Subpa rt P, Appe n dix 2, or a lte rnative l y , the ALJ c an pre se nt a hy

pothe tic a l que stion tha

t de sc ribe s the c la im a

nt’ s lim i tations to a [voc ationa l e xpe rt] .” Bray v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin. , 554 F.3d 1219, 1223 n.4 (9th C i r. 2009). The ALJ prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t Alba y wa s not disa

ble d unde r the grids a

nd re lie d on the te stim ony of a voc ationa l e xpe rt who sta te d tha t a hy pothe tic a l individual with Alba y ’ s lim ita tions c an work a s a

route r, re ta il m arke r, or house k e e pe r. AFFIRM E D
.

4