N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JEANNIE NIC OLE B R

UESC H, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35124 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01453-HU
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

6, 2015 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd D.W . NELSON a

nd LEAVY, C irc uit Judge s. Je annie B rue sc h a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt 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 insura nc e be ne fits a

nd supple m e nta l se c urity

inc o m e unde r Title s II and XVI of the



# FIL E D JUL 08 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. B rue sc h c onte nds tha t the a dm inistra

tive la wjudge (“ A LJ” )
e rre d by fa iling to inc lude in his re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c i ty finding or in his que stion to the

voc ationa l e xpe rt his finding a t ste p thre e of the se que ntia l
e va luation proc e ss, a

nd doc t ors’ findings, tha

t B rue sc h ha d m o de rate diffic ultie s with re ga rd to c onc e ntrat ion, pe rsiste nc e , or pa c e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt de novo. Se eMolina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). “ [A] n ALJ’ s a sse ssm e nt of a c l a im ant a de quate ly
c a pture s re stric tions re late d to c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , or pa c e whe re the
a sse ssm e nt is c onsiste nt with re stric tions identifie d in them e dic a l [re c ord] .” Stubbs-Danie lson v . Astrue , 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th C ir. 2008). In StubbsDanie lson , we he l d tha

t a finding tha

t a c l a im ant ha d

the re sidua l func tiona l
c a pa c ity “ to pe rform

sim ple , routine , re pe titivese de nta ry work,” a s we l l a s a hy pothe t ic a l que stion tha

t re fle c te d the sa m e lim ita tions, a d e quat e ly

inc orporate d lim ita tions re late d to pa c e and othe r m e nta l limita tions re g arding a

tte ntion,
c onc e ntration, a

nd a da ption tha t ha d be e n ide ntifie d by doc tors. Id. at 1173-76. W e e xpla ine d tha

t only one doc tor ha d a sse sse d

whe the r the c la im a

nt c o uld pe rform unskille d work on a susta ine d ba sis, a

nd this doc t or ha d c onc l ude d tha t the

2c la im ant c ould do so de spite t he doc t or’ s a dditional finding tha t the c la im a

nt ha d a slow pa c e . Id. at 1174-75. In a sse ssing B rue sc h’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a pa c ity , the ALJ found tha t she
wa s lim ite d to “unde rsta

nding, re m e m

be ring a nd c arry ing unskille d

instruc tions.” In his hy pothe tic a l que stion to the

voc ationa l e xpe rt, theALJ de s c ribe d a pe rson who “ would belim i te d to unskille d work.” Like the doc tor in Stubbs-Danie lson , Dr. Gre gory

C ole c o n c lude d tha

t de spite B rue s c h’ s te nde nc y to giveup e a sily

on ta sks a nd he r slow pa c e , she wa s a ble to sustain sim

ple , routineta sks. Two other psy c hologists sim

ila rly c onc lude d tha

t de spite B rue sc h’ s lim ita t ions in
c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , or pa c e , she wa s c a pa b le of pe rform ing he r pa st re le va nt work. Ac c ordingly , the ALJ’ s re sidua l func tiona l c a p a c ity finding a nd hy pothe t ic a l que stion we re c onsiste nt with the re stric tions identifie d in them e dic a l
re c o rd and thus a de q

uate ly de sc ribe d B rue sc h ’ s lim ita tions. S e eid. at 1174-75; se e also W insc he l v . C

omm’r of Soc . Se c . , 631 F.3d 1176, 1180-81 (11th C ir. 2011) (re quiring hy

p othe t ic a l que s tion pose d to voc ationa l e xpe rt to a c c ount spe c ific a lly for “ m o de rate lim i tation[s] in m a inta ining c onc e ntration, pe rsiste nc e , a nd pa c e ” ). AFFIRM E D.

3