IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

GINGER APPLER SWAIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

TIM WILBORN 

Wilborn Law Office, P.C. 

P.O. Box 370578 

Las Vegas, NV 89137 

(702) 240-0184 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Billy J. Williams 

Acting United States Attorney 

RONALD K. SILVER 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

(503) 727-1003 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

6:14-CV-01113-BR 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 19
DAVID MORADO 

Regional chief Counsel 

COURTNEY GARCIA 

Special Assistant United States Attorney 

Social Security Administration 

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, M/S 221A 

Seattle, WA 98104-7075 

(206) 615-2934 

Attorneys for Defendant 

BROWN, Judge. 

Plaintiff Ginger Appler Swain seeks judicial review of a 

final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) in which she denied Plaintiff's applications for 

Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. 

This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final 

decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Following a review of the record, the Court AFFIRMS the 

decision of the Commissioner and DISMISSES this matter. 

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY 

Plaintiff filed her applications on March 16, 2010, and 

alleged a disability onset date of January 31, 2010. Tr. 192. 1 

The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. 

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on January 12, 

1 Citations to the official transcript of record filed by 

the Commissioner on November 18, 2014, are referred to as "Tr." 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 2 of 19
2012. Tr. 45-79. At the hearing Plaintiff was represented by an 

attorney. Plaintiff and a vocational expert (VE) testified. 

The ALJ issued a decision on October 25, 2012, in which he 

found Plaintiff was not disabled. Tr. 20-33. That decision 

became the final decision of the Commissioner on May 13, 2014, 

when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. 

Tr. 1-5. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07 (2000). 

On July 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court 

seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff was born on February 1, 1969, and was 41 years old 

on her alleged onset date. She completed the sixth grade. 

Tr. 50. Plaintiff has past relevant work experience as a 

caregiver, a cashier, and a prep cook. Tr. 52-53. 

Plaintiff alleges disability due to "webbed fingers since 

birth, psoriasis in all joints, bursitis, [and] osteo-arthritis." 

Tr. 234. 

STANDARDS 

The initial burden of proof rests on the claimant to 

establish disability. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th 

Cir. 2012). To meet this burden, a claimant must demonstrate her 

inability ''to engage in any substantial gainful activity by 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 3 of 19
reason of any medically determinable physical or mental 

impairment which . . . has lasted or can be expected to last for 

a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. 

§ 423(d) (1) (A). The ALJ must develop the record when there is 

ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for 

proper evaluation of the evidence. McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 

881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F. 3d 

453, 459-60 (9ili Cir. 2001)). 

The district court must affirm the Commissioner's decision 

if it is based on proper legal standards and the findings are 

supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). See also Brewes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 

682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence is 

"relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion." Molina, 674 F.3d. at 1110-11 

(quoting Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 

(9th Cir. 2009)). It is more than a mere scintilla [of evidence] 

but less than a preponderance. Id. (citing Valentine, 574 F.3d 

at 690). 

The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, 

resolving conflicts in the medical evidence, and resolving 

ambiguities. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 

2009) . The court must weigh all of the evidence whether it 

supports or detracts from the Commissioner's decision. Ryan v. 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 4 of 19
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). Even 

when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

interpretation, the court must uphold the Commissioner's findings 

if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the 

record. Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2012). 

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the 

Commissioner. Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 

2006) . 

DISABILITY ANALYSIS 

Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential 

process for determining whether an applicant is disabled within 

the meaning of the Social Security Act. Keyser v. Comm'r of 

Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2011). See also 

Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520, 416.920. Each step is potentially dispositive. 

At Step One the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner 

determines the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful 

activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) (4) (I), 416.920(a) (4) (I). See 

also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724. 

At Step Two the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner 

determines the claimant does not have any medically severe 

impairment or combination of impairments. Stout v. Comm'r Soc. 

Sec Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006). See also 20 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 5 of 19
C. F.R. §§ 404 .1520 (a) (4) (ii), 416. 920 (a) (4) (ii); Keyser, 648 F. 3d 

at 724. 

At Step Three the Commissioner must determine whether a 

claimant's impairments meet or equal one of the listed 

impairments and are so severe that they preclude substantial 

gainful activity. The claimant is disabled if the Commissioner 

determines the claimant's impairments meet or equal one of the 

listed impairments that the Commissioner acknowledges are so 

severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404 .1520 (a) (4) (iii), 416. 920 (a) (4) (iii). See also Keyser, 648 

F.3d at 724. The criteria for the listed impairments, known as 

Listings, are enumerated in 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, 

appendix 1 (Listed Impairments). 

If the Commissioner proceeds beyond Step Three, she must 

assess the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC). The 

claimant's RFC is an assessment of the sustained, work-related 

physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a 

regular and continuing basis despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). See also Social Security Ruling 

(SSR) 96-8p. "A 'regular and continuing basis' means 8 hours a 

day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent schedule.'' SSR 96-8p, 

at *1. In other words, the Social Security Act does not require 

complete incapacity to be disabled. Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fair 

6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 6 of 19
v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989)). The assessment of 

a claimant's RFC is at the heart of Steps Four and Five of the 

sequential analysis when the ALJ is determining whether a 

claimant can still work despite severe medical impairments. An 

improper evaluation of the claimant's ability to perform specific 

work-related functions "could make the difference between a 

finding of 'disabled' and 'not disabled.''' SSR 96-8p, at *4. 

At Step Four the claimant is not disabled if the 

Commissioner determines the claimant retains the RFC to perform 

work he has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) (4) (iv), 

416.920(a) (4) (iv). See also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724. 

If the Commissioner reaches Step Five, she must determine 

whether the claimant is able to do any other work that exists in 

the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) (4) (v), 

416.920(a) (4) (v). See also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724-25. Here the 

burden shifts to the Commissioner to show a significant number of 

jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 

Lockwood v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th 

Cir. 2010). The Commissioner may satisfy this burden through the 

testimony of a VE or by reference to the Medical-Vocational 

Guidelines set forth in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. part 404, 

subpart P, appendix 2. If the Commissioner meets this burden, 

the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(l), 

416. 920 (g) (1). 

7 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 7 of 19
ALJ'S FINDINGS 

At Step One the ALJ found Plaintiff has engaged in 

substantial gainful activity (SGA) since her January 31, 2010, 

onset date. Tr. 22. Although the ALJ noted Plaintiff's earnings 

were above the SGA level during some months of the relevant 

period, Plaintiff's average monthly earnings were just below SGA 

levels. 

At Step Two the ALJ found Plaintiff had severe impairments 

including bilateral congenital hand deformities ("status post 

childhood surgical repair"), psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, 

osteoarthritis, nonobstructive coronary artery disease, 

hypertension, bilateral hip pain, obesity, eczema, 

hyperlipidemia, and degenerative disc disease of the cervical and 

lumbar spine. Tr. 23. 

At Step Three the ALJ found Plaintiff's impairments do not 

meet or equal any listed impairment. Tr. 24. The ALJ found 

Plaintiff has the RFC to perform less than a full range of light 

work and can lift or carry ten pounds frequently and twenty 

pounds occasionally, can sit for six hours during a normal eighthour work day, with normal breaks, and can stand or walk for 

about two hours during a normal eight-hour work day. She can 

frequently climb ramps and stairs, balance, kneel, and crouch. 

8 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 8 of 19
She can occasionally stoop and crawl. She cannot climb ladders, 

ropes or scaffolds. She is able to handle and finger bilaterally 

frequently, but she needs to avoid concentrated exposure to 

workplace hazards such as unprotected heights and unguarded 

moving machinery. Tr. 25. 

At Step Four the ALJ found Plaintiff is unable to perform 

any of her past relevant work. Tr. 31. 

At Step Five the ALJ found Plaintiff is able to perform work 

that exists in significant numbers in the national economy such 

as electronics worker, cashier, and storage-facility clerk. 

Tr. 32. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by (1) improperly rejecting 

portions of the medical opinions of examining physician Raymond 

P. Nolan, M.D., Ph.D., and treating physician Jennifer Ranton, 

M. D.; (2) improperly rejecting lay-witness testimony; (3) 

improperly finding at Step Five that Plaintiff is able to perform 

light work; and (4) failing to find that Plaintiff's occupational 

base is significantly eroded. 

I. The ALJ did not err when weighing the medical evidence. 

Disability opinions are reserved for the Commissioner. 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e) (1); 416.927(e) (1). If there is not a 

conflict between medical source opinions, the ALJ generally must 

9 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 9 of 19
accord greater weight to the opinion of a treating physician than 

to the opinion of an examining physician because the treating 

physician has a greater opportunity to know and to observe the 

patient as an individual. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th 

Cir. 2007). See also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th 

Cir. 1995). Similarly, the ALJ also must give greater weight to 

the opinion of an examining physician than to the opinion of a 

reviewing physician. Id. The ALJ may not reject a physician's 

contradicted opinion without providing specific and legitimate 

reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for doing 

so. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632; Widmark, 454 F.3d at 1066. If a 

treating or examining physician's opinion is not contradicted by 

another physician, the ALJ may only reject it for clear and 

convincing reasons. Id. (treating physician); Widmark v. 

Barnhart, 454 F. 3d 1063, 1067 (9'h Cir. 2006) (examining 

physician). The opinion of a nonexamining physician by itself is 

insufficient to constitute substantial evidence for rejecting the 

opinion of a treating or examining physician. Widmark, 454 F.3d 

at 1066 n. 2. 

The ALJ may reject physician opinions that are "brief, 

conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings." 

Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). 

A. Opinion of Dr. Nolan, Examining Physician 

Dr. Nolan examined Plaintiff on August 7, 2010. Tr. 315-

10 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 10 of 19
16. He found Plaintiff "certainly would have difficulty with 

repetitive hand/finger activities in reference to the metacarpal 

phalangeal complaints." Tr. 316. Dr. Nolan found Plaintiff is 

able to sit for six hours in an eight-hour day and to walk or to 

stand for two hours in an eight-hour day. Id. Dr. Nolan found 

Plaintiff could frequently lift or carry up to ten pounds and 

lift or carry 20 pounds occasionally. 

An ALJ may discount a medical source opinion to the extent 

that it conflicts with the claimant's activities. Morgan v. 

Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 601-02 (9th Cir. 

1999). Here the ALJ gave "limited weight" to Dr. Nolan's opinion 

on the ground that Plaintiff worked after her alleged onset date 

for nine out of 20 months at SGA levels at a medium-exertion 

level job that required frequent handling, fingering and feeling. 

Tr. 31. The ALJ incorporated Dr. Nolan's restrictions in 

Plaintiff's RFC except for the limitation regarding repetitive 

hand/finger activities. 

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by assuming Plaintiff 

performed her caregiver job with "frequent" manipulative 

activities as the job is classified in the Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles (DOT) 2 • Plaintiff, however, contends her 

caregiver job as she actually performed it did not require 

2 Dictionary of Occupational Titles App'x C (4th ed. 

1991) (available at 1991 WL 688702). 

11 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 11 of 19
abilities in excess of those described by Dr. Nolan, specifically 

as to Plaintiff's ability to manipulate. 

Social Security Regulations identify two sources of 

information that may be used to define a claimant's past relevant 

work as actually performed: a properly completed vocational 

report (SSR 82-61) and the claimant's own testimony (SSR 82-41). 

See also Pinto v. Massanari, 249 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 

In support of her position Plaintiff points to letters 

submitted by her co-workers in which they assert Plaintiff "gets 

sent home due to pain, bloating and emotional upheaval"; "she has 

been sent home for the pain she endures"; "she bloats up, can't 

bend due to pain"; and she "can't perform [job duties like 

helping residents shower and change] as needed." Tr. 282-83. 

Co-workers also note Plaintiff is in pain "due to her hips," she 

"has stomach issues where her stomach is bloated and has a very 

hard time walking, bending over and lifting at times"; and "[h]er 

ankles and legs swell . [and she] is unable to walk." 

Tr. 284-85. None of Plaintiff's co-workers, however, indicate 

Plaintiff has significant manipulative limitations. 

The Commissioner specifically points to the April 2010 Work 

History Report in which Plaintiff describes her caregiver job as 

requiring eight hours a day of "handle, grab or grasp big 

objects" and eight hours a day of "write, type or handle small 

objects." Tr. 242. Plaintiff describes the job as "cook [,] 

12 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 12 of 19
provide activities of daily living [,] shower [,] pass medication 

. answer phones [,] call family member, set up appointment[,] 

work with hospice." Tr. 242. Thus, based on Plaintiff's selfcompleted vocational report, she performed the caregiver job at a 

heavy level with several hours of gross- and fine-hand 

manipulation. Tr. 242. 

On this record the Court concludes the ALJ did not err when 

he rejected part of Dr. Nolan's opinion because the ALJ provided 

legally sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence in 

the record for doing so. 

B. Opinion of Dr. Ranton, Treating Physician 

In May 2012 Dr. Ranton completed a Residual Functional 

Capacity Report in which she stated she had been Plaintiff's 

treating physician since 2007. Tr. 561. Dr. Ranton opined 

Plaintiff could sit up to six hours and stand or walk up to two 

hours in an eight-hour work day. Tr. 563. Dr. Ranton reported 

Plaintiff suffers chronic pain ftbut probably not as severely as 

she describes and arthritis alone cannot explain all of her 

complaints." Tr. 562. Dr. Ranton opined Plaintiff suffered 

bilateral ankle and foot pain, most likely due to alcoholic 

peripheral neuropathy, with congenital joint deformities in both 

hands and bilateral hip pain. Tr. 562. Dr. Ranton concluded 

Plaintiff's lower-extremity complaints (below her hips) were 

primarily nocturnal and would not limit her ability to work, but 

13 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 13 of 19
she "would have difficulty with repetitive hand and finger 

activities. 0 Tr. 562. Dr. Ranton opined Plaintiff could handle, 

feel, and grasp occasionally, but never finger. Tr. 30, 564. 

Dr. Ranton attached to her opinion the December 2008 report 

of examining rheumatologist William P. Maier, M.D. Tr. 559-60. 

Dr. Maier found Plaintiff has good grip and fist capabilities, 

good range of motion of elbows, shoulders, spine, hips, and 

knees, and "relatively mild psoriatic arthritis involving small 

joints of the hands. 0 Tr. 560. 

The ALJ may discredit physician opinions that are 

conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record or objective 

medical findings. Batson v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 

F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). Here the ALJ noted the 

limitations included in Dr. Ranton's report were contradicted by 

Plaintiff's demonstrated ability to continue working at nearly 

substantial gainful activity levels at a strenuous job that 

Plaintiff described as requiring frequent to constant hand and 

finger manipulation. Tr. 30. See Morgan, 169 F.3d at 601-02. 

The ALJ also noted a recent hand x-ray did not show any 

significant degenerative changes. Tr. 31. 

On this record the Court concludes the ALJ did not err when 

he rejected part of Dr. Ranton's opinion because the ALJ provided 

legally sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence in 

the record for doing so. 

14 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 14 of 19
II. Lay-Witness Testimony 

The ALJ has a duty to consider lay-witness testimony. 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3), 416.913(d). 

See also Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Friends and family members in a position to observe the 

claimant's symptoms and daily activities are competent to testify 

regarding the claimant's condition. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 

915, 918-19 (9th Cir. 1993). See also Stout v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006). The ALJ may not 

reject such testimony without comment and must give reasons 

germane to the witness for rejecting her testimony. Nguyen v. 

Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996). Inconsistency with 

the medical evidence may constitute a germane reason. Lewis, 236 

F.3d at 512. The ALJ may also reject lay testimony when it 

repeats the limitations expressed in the claimant's testimony 

and/or reports that the ALJ properly found were not credible. 

Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 

2009). Here, therefore, the reasons the ALJ provided for 

rejecting Plaintiff's testimony apply equally to the reports from 

Plaintiff's coworkers. See id. at 694. The Court notes 

Plaintiff does not contest the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff's 

testimony was not fully credible as to her symptoms and 

limitations. Tr. 28. 

The ALJ also noted the lay testimony was inconsistent with 

15 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 15 of 19
the medical evidence, which is a germane reason to reject lay 

testimony. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 

2005). The ALJ noted Plaintiff's x-rays were relatively benign. 

Tr. 26-27. Although Plaintiff had generalized pain in her hips, 

knees, and ankles, the pain improved with walking and moving 

around. Tr. 27, 519. Dr. Nolan described Plaintiff's normal 

gait and her ability to walk, to hop, and to squat without 

problem. Tr. 27, 315. 

On this record the Court concludes the ALJ did not err when 

he gave only some weight to the lay-witness statements because 

the ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons supported by 

substantial evidence in the record for doing so. 

III. The ALJ did not err at Step Five. 

At Step Five in the sequential analysis the ALJ determines 

whether the claimant can perform work in the national economy. 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a) (4) (v), 416. (a) (4) (v). The ALJ may 

take administrative notice of the occupational data contained 

in the DOT or draw on a VE's testimony to show that a claimant 

can perform work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1566(d-e), 416.966(d-e). The decision to use a VE is 

reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566(e), 

416. 966 (e). 

The ALJ's questions to the VE must include all properly 

supported limitations (Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 

16 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 16 of 19
(9th Cir. 2001)), and the ALJ must ask the VE whether her 

testimony is consistent with the DOT (Massachi v. Astrue, 486 

F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2007)). The ALJ's failure to inquire 

is harmless if the VE "provided sufficient support for her 

conclusion so as to justify any potential conflicts" with the DOT 

or if a conflict does not arise. Id. at 1153 n.19. 

The ALJ may rely on VE testimony rather than the DOT when 

the issue is "complex" (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566(e), 416.966(e)) or 

when "the record contains persuasive evidence to support the 

deviation." (Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1435 (9th Cir. 

1995)). See also Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th 

Cir. 2008). Such evidence includes available job data and a 

claimant's specific limitations. When "a claimant's exertional 

limitation falls between two grid rules, the ALJ fulfills his 

obligation to determine the claimant's occupational base by 

consulting a vocational expert regarding whether a person with 

claimant's profile could perform substantial gainful work in the 

economy." Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2000). 

When there is a conflict between the VE's testimony and the DOT, 

however, the ALJ must elicit a reasonable explanation for the 

conflict before relying on the VE's testimony. SSR 00-4p. 

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred when he found Plaintiff is 

able to stand or to walk for two hours during a normal eight-hour 

work day and then found Plaintiff could perform jobs in unskilled 

17 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 17 of 19
light occupations including electronics worker, cashier, and 

storage-facility clerk. Plaintiff cites SSR 83-10, which defines 

the full range of light work as requiring standing or walking for 

a total of approximately six hours in an eight-hour work day. 

Thus, Plaintiff contends she is limited to sedentary work. 

Here the ALJ asked the VE whether a person with Plaintiff's 

limitations of standing or walking for no more than two hours 

would be able to perform the jobs of cashier II, electronics 

worker, and storage-facility clerk. Tr. 76. The VE responded 

Plaintiff would still be able to perform these jobs, but "I would 

however reduce the numbers on cashier to allow for a little more 

of a sit, stand ability there." Id. Accordingly, the VE reduced 

the number of cashier II positions by 50% to approximately 

1,710,000 nationally and 17,840 regionally on the basis that 50% 

of cashier II jobs are performed with limited standing and 

walking. Tr. 76. 

Even if the VE did not adequately explain how Plaintiff 

could perform the electronics worker and storage-facility clerk 

positions with limited standing and walking, the VE, as noted, 

provided an explanation for the cashier II job by reducing the 

number of available jobs by 50% to accommodate Plaintiff's 

limitations in standing and walking on the basis that 50% of 

cashier II jobs are performed with limited standing and walking. 

Tr. 76. The cashier II jobs alone constitute a sufficient number 

18 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 18 of 19
of jobs available in the national economy, and, therefore, any 

error by the ALJ at Step Five was harmless. See Lewis v. Astrue, 

498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007). 

IV. Plaintiff's Occupational Base 

SSR 96-9p provides "significant manipulative limitations" 

will result in substantial erosion of the claimant's unskilled 

sedentary occupational base. Thus, Plaintiff argues her 

occupational base is significantly eroded because her RFC is 

properly categorized as "sedentary." Plaintiff asserts under SSR 

96-9P, therefore, she is disabled. Plaintiff's argument fails, 

however, because the ALJ properly gave little weight to 

Dr. Ranton's opinion regarding Plaintiff's manipulative 

limitations, and therefore, SSR 96-9p does not apply. As noted, 

the ALJ's determination of this issue is supported by substantial 

evidence in the record. 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the 

Commissioner and DISMISSES this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 27th day of August, 2015. 

19 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01113-BR Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 19 of 19