T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A RLEN E PRO PPS, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. COM M I SS I ON EROF SOCI AL S E C UR I T Y A DMI NI S T R AT I ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 16488 D. C. No . 1 : 0 9 - c v - 0 1 0 1 7 - DLB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D e nni s L . B e c k, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r16, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a r l e ne P r opps appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the Co mmi s s i o n e r ’ s th i r d d e n i a l o f h e rap p l i c a t i o n f

o rSu p p l e me n t a l Se c u r i ty I n c o me d i s ab i l i ty b e n e f

i t s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f i rm. 

# FI LED DE C 01 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P r opps m us tove r c om e the pr e s um pt i on of c ont i nui ng non- di s abi l i ty by de m ons tr a t i ng “ c ha nge d c i r c um s t a nc e s ” s i nc e the C om m i s s i one r ’ s pr i orde ni a l s of b e n e f its . T aylor v. H

ec kler , 7 6 5 F . 2 d 8 7 2 , 8 7 5 (9 th C i r. 1 9 8 5 ). In p ri o r h eari n g s, the A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw Judg e ( “ A L J” ) f ou nd thatP ropp s had “ sl i gh tt o m od er at e” defi ci enci es i n con ce ntra t i on , pers i st ence and p ac e, w i th a re si du al funct i on al c apa c i ty ( “ R F C ” ) t o pe r f orm l i m i t e d l i ghtw ork. T he A L J a dopt e d thos e f i ndi ngs i n thi s c a s e . P r opps ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe A L J e rr e d r e s t s on the m e di c a l opi ni ons of tw o tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n s , D r . Z h a n g a n d D r . H o o d . H ow ever , D r. Z hang al so l i st ed defi ci enci es i n con ce ntra t i on , pers i st ence and p ac e, and d i d n otspec i fyw hether these l i m i t at i on s w ou l d b e s l i gh tor m od er at e. D r. H oo d n ot ed som e “ m od er at e” l i m i t at i on s, bu tul t i m at el y f ou nd thatP ropp s c ou l d “ [c ] arryou tsi m pl e t as ks for a n o rm a l w o rkw e e k .” Su b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e e x i s t e d t o s u p p o rtth e A LJ ’ s RFC d e te rm in a tio n . M

ag al lan es v. B ow en , 88 1 F . 2d 74 7, 75 0-53 (9th C i r. 19 89 ). E ven if th e A L J in c o rr e c tly c h a r a c te r iz e d P r o p p s ’s lim ita tio n s a s s lig h t to m o d e r a te i nst ea d o f m od er at e, the error w as harm l es s, as the R F C fi nd i ng re m ai ned unc ha nge d, a nd ac l a i m antw i th “ m ode r a t e ” l i m i t a t i ons m a y c a rry outs i m pl e w ork. Stubbs -D ani e l

s on v . A s tr ue , 53 9 F . 3d 11 69 , 11 74 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). T h e A L J a lso p ro p er ly re li ed o n v o ca ti o n al testim o n y b as ed o n P ro p p s’s R F C . A l though P r opps a r gue s tha tthe A L J di d notgi ve w e i ghtt o aport i on of the3

voc a t i ona l e xpe rt ’ s t e s t i m ony , i tw a s pr ope rf orthe A L J t o c ons i de ronl y the h yp o th e tic a l s u p p o rte d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d . M ag al lan es , 881 F . 2d at75 6-57 . B as ed on the re cord, the A L J f ou nd thatP ropp s c ou l d p er form l i m i t e d l i ghtw ork. H e r e l i e d on the voc a t i ona l e xpe rtt e s t i m ony tha tac l a i m a nt w i th the R F C t o do l i m i t e d l i ghtw ork w a s c apabl e of m a ki ng as uc c e s s f

ul adj ustm entt o o ther w ork thatexi st s i n si gn i fi cantnu m bers i n the nat i on al e c o n o my . Su b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o rt s th e A LJ ’ s d e t e rmi n a t i o n o f Pr o p p s ’ s RFC a n d r e l i a n c e o n c o rr e s p o n d i n g v o c a t i o n a l e x p e rtt e s t i mo n y . Se e 2 0 C. F. R. §§ 41 6. 94 5(a) (3), 41 6. 94 6(c) . AF F I RME D.