N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LISA ANN C OLM ER

Y-PINKER TON, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-55810 D.C . No. 5:14-c v-00726-JFW -PLA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 6, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Lisa C olm e ry -Pinke rton a

ppe a ls pro se 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 n ia l of C olm e ry -Pinke rton’ s
a pplic a tion for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e 

# F IL ED
APR 10 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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).unde r Title s II and XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e re vie w de novo, G hanim v

. C olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th C ir. 2014), a nd we a ffirm
. C olm e ry -Pinke rton c onte nds tha t the a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) e rre d in not a dopting the

re c om m e ndation of “ t

he SSA re pre se n tative ” that C olm e ry Pinke rton is una

b le to work. W e c onstrue C o lm e ry -Pinke rton’ s pro se ple a dings libe ra l ly
. Se e Garmon v . C ty . of Los Ange le

s , 828 F.3d 837, 846 (9th C ir. 2016). C olm e ry -Pinke rton’ s brie fing indic ate s she inte nds the te rm “ the SSA
re pre se ntative ” to re fe r to the attorne y who re pre se n te d he r a t he r he aring be fore the A LJ, a

nd a lso pe rha

ps to thevoc ationa l e xpe rt (“ VE” ) who te stifie d at he r he aring. The ALJ did not err in disre ga rding the ope ning sta

te m e nt m a de by C olm e ry -Pinke rton’ s c ounse l during thehe aring be fore the ALJ, a rguing tha

t C olm e ry -Pinke rton wa s e n t itle d to a disa b ility finding. Although a

c la im an t’ s
c ounse l m ay

introduc e argum e nts in support of he r c a se , suc h a

rgum e nt by

c ounse l is not sworn witne ss te stim ony that the ALJ m ust we igh in de te rm ining whe the r the c la i m ant is disa

ble d. Se e 42 C .F.R .§§ 405.1030(b); 405.1036(c ); 405.1036(d). The de te rm ination of a

c la im ant’ s a

bility to work is re se rve d

to the ALJ. Se e Mc Le o d v . Astrue , 640 F.3d 881, 884-85 (9th C ir. 2011).

2C olm e ry -Pinke rton a sse rts tha t the ALJ disre ga

rde d the VE’ s te s tim ony

tha t she wa s una

b le to work. To the

c ontra ry , the ALJ prope rly

pose d a se rie s of hy pothe t ic a l que stions to the VE re ga rding the lim ita

tions theALJ found to be supporte d by the re c ord e vide nc e and inc orporat e d into there sidua l func tiona l
c a pa c ity a sse ssm e nt. Se e Ose nbroc k v . Apfe l , 240 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th C ir 2001) (“ An ALJ m

u st propose a hy

pothe tic a l tha

t is ba se d on m e d ic a l a s sum ptions supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t re fle c ts e a c h of the c la im ant’ s lim ita tions.” ); 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1545(a ), 416.945(a ). The ALJ did not err in
re ly ing on theVE’ s re sponse to a hy pothe tic a l tha

t inc orporate d a ll of C olm e ry Pinke rton’ s lim ita

tions tha t we re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . Ose nbroc k, 240 F.3d a

t 1164. AFFIRM E D.

3