N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OXSAN DAW

N YOUNG, 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. 19-15957 D.C . No. 1:18-c v-00055-JDP
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 J e re m y D. Pe te rson, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 8, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON, C HR ISTEN, a

n d B ADE, C irc uit Judge s . R oxsa n Young a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision 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 ations for disa

bility and supple m e nta l se c urity

inc om e . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 

# FIL ED FEB 10 2021 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).and we a ffirm . The pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c t s a

nd we re c ount the m

only a s
ne c e ssa ry to re solve the argum e nts on a ppe a l. W e re vie w de novo a

n d m ay se t a side a

de n ia l of be ne fits only

if it is unsupporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e or the a d

m inistra t ive la w judge (ALJ)
c om m itte d le ga l e rror. Ford v . Saul , 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th C ir. 2020). Young a rgue s the ALJ e rre d at

ste p four by

de te rm ining Young c ould pe rform he r pa st work a s a m a i l c le rk and orde r c le rk. In pa rtic ula r, Young a

rgue s the A LJ’ s de c ision wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e be c a

use the ALJ
a ske d the voc ationa l e xpe rt (VE) if Young c ould pe rform he r pa st work a ssum ing,
am ong a num be r of othe r lim i tations, tha t Young ne e ds to re st a

n d e le vate he r le gs for 15 m inute s e ve ry

two hours during re gula

r re st a nd m e a l bre aks. Young a rgue s

“ the que stion dire c t[e d] t

he [voc ationa l e xpe rt] to a s sum e som e thing tha t is funda m e nta lly not true : tha

t w o rke rs c an re st a

nd e le vate the ir le gs for 15 m inute s
e ve ry two hours during bre aks a nd lunc h.” W e are not pe rsua de d. R e a d in c onte x t, the ALJ a ske d the VE whe the r a hy pothe t ic a l pe rson with Young’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity c ould pe rform Young’ s pa st work of m a i l c le rk and orde r c le rk. The hy pothe tic a l inc lude d

the lim ita tion tha t Young ne e d s to re st a

nd e le vate he r le gs for 15 m inute s e v e ry two hours. T he ALJ a ske d the VE to a ssum e the se lim ita tions. TheVE c onfirm e d tha t
2Young c ould pe rform he r pa st work a s a

n orde r c le rk a s it is ge ne ra lly pe rform e d, but not a s she pre viously

pe rform e d it, a

n d a m a i l c le rk a s she pre viously pe rform e d it, but not a s it is ge ne ra lly pe rform e d, give n the sta

t e d lim ita tions. The ALJ’ s finding a

t ste p four tha

t Young wa s not disa

ble d be c a use she c ould pe rform he r pa st work wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Bie

ste k v . Be rry h ill , 139 S. C t. 1148, 1155 (2019) (obse rving tha t a voc at iona l e xpe rt’ s te stim o ny “ would be the k ind of e vide nc e
— far ‘ m ore tha n a m e re sc intilla ’

—

tha t ‘ a re a sona ble m ind
m ight a c c e p t a s a de quate to support’ a finding a b out job a va ila bility ” ) (quoting C onsol. Edison C

o . v . N LRB , 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). The ALJ did not err by
c onc luding tha

t Young ha d not m e t he r burde n of showing tha t she c an no longe r pe rform he r pa st re l e va

nt work. Se e Pinto v
. Massanari , 249 F.3d 840, 844 (9th C ir. 2001). Young’ s re m a ining a

rgum e nts fa

re no be tte r. Young sugge sts tha t the ALJ im prope rly c onside re d a

disa bility a c c om m odation a s pa

rt of the disa

bility fra m e work. This a

rgum e nt re sts on thefa

ulty pre m ise that ta

k ing 15 minute s to
re st a nd e le vate one ’ s le g s during “norm a l bre aks a nd the lunc h pe riod,” is a

n
a c c om m odation.

3Young a lso a rgue s tha t som e sta t e s re quire only

a 10-m inute re st pe riod in the m iddle of e a c h four hours worke d. T his is a m inim um re quire m e nt, not a
m a xim um . AFFIRM E D.

4