1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RICHARD DAWAYNE HOLT, 

Plaintiff, No. 3:14-cv-01010-PK

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ORDER

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [17] on June 4, 2015, in 

which he recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny supplemental 

security income and disability insurance benefits to Plaintiff Richard Holt. The matter is now 

before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

72(b).

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. 

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation, 

Case 3:14-cv-01010-PK Document 21 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 3
2 – ORDER

the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's 

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff’s credible testimony, 

improperly rejected the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating doctor, failed to present a complete 

vocational hypothetical to the vocational expert (VE), and erroneously relied on flawed 

vocational testimony in reaching his conclusions at step five of the sequential analysis. 

This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and concludes there is no basis 

to modify the Findings & Recommendation. This Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions 

of the record de novo and finds no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 

Recommendation.

However, Plaintiff’s argument regarding the ALJ’s alleged error at step five of the 

sequential analysis merits commentary from this Court. Among other arguments, Plaintiff 

contends that, because the ALJ found Plaintiff limited to sedentary work with no stooping, 

Plaintiff should be found disabled in accordance with Social Security Ruling 96-9p, which states 

that “[a] complete inability to stoop would significantly erode the unskilled sedentary 

occupational base and a finding that the individual is disabled would usually apply . . . .” Pl.’s 

Obj. 8. Plaintiff argues that a proper interpretation of SSR 96-9p leads to the conclusion that a 

VE is needed to testify “only in a rare case where a claimant’s ability to stoop falls in between 

occasional and never . . . . ” Id. In a case such as this one, where the claimant is completely 

limited in his ability to stoop, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should have “simply complied” with 

SSR 96-9p and found Plaintiff disabled.

Case 3:14-cv-01010-PK Document 21 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 3
3 – ORDER

A cursory search of Ninth Circuit cases on this topic revealed a recent case that is directly 

on point. In Duncan v. Colvin, 593 F. App'x 668 (9th Cir. 2015), the plaintiff made a nearly 

identical argument regarding the application of SSR 96-9p on a limitation on stooping and 

unskilled sedentary work. In a February 12, 2015 decision, the Ninth Circuit unequivocally 

rejected the plaintiff’s argument, explaining that:

We also reject [the plaintiff’s] contention that her inability to perform any stooping 

established that her occupational base was eroded to the point that she was disabled. 

Although SSR 96–9p states that a finding of disability in such a situation would usually 

apply, SSR 96–9p at *8, SSR 96–9p also states that “a finding that an individual has the 

ability to do less than a full range of sedentary work does not necessarily equate with a 

decision of ‘disabled.’ ... [C]onsideration must still be given to whether there is other 

work in the national economy that the individual is able to do, considering age, 

education, and work experience,” id. at *1.

Duncan, 593 F. App'x at 669-70. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings & Recommendation [17], and 

therefore, the Commissioner’s final decision is affirmed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2015.

________________________________________________ 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01010-PK Document 21 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 3