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

REZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN C OLVIN, Ac t ing C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35231 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00448-M O 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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

7, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : B EA a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s a nd B UR NS, ** Distric t Judge . M aria Gutie rre za

ppe a ls thedistric 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 nia l of he r a pplic ation for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits under Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. The pa

rtie s know the 

# FIL ED JUL 29 2016 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 Honora

ble La rry A. B urns, Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for theSouthe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.fa c t s, so we do not re c ite the m he re . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291,

and we a ffirm . 1 W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt upholding a n a dm inistra

tive la w judge ’ s (“ ALJ” ) de nia l of soc ia l se c urity be ne fits. G hanim v . C

olv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th C ir. 2014). W e re ve rse only if the ALJ’ s de c ision is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in there c ord or is ba se d on le ga l e rror. Id . The ALJ did not err in de te rm ining tha t Gutie rre z c ould pe rform work a s a c a shie r de spite he r ina

bility to re a c h a

bove shoulde r le ve l with he r right ha n d. First of a ll, the re wa s no “ a ppa re nt” c onflic t be twe e n

the Dic tiona

ry of Oc c upationa l Title ’ s (“ DOT’ s” ) highly ge n e ric de sc ription of c a shie r work a nd the voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s (“ VE’ s” ) te s tim ony . “ The DOT lists max i m um re quire m e nts of oc c upations a s ge ne ra l ly pe rform e d, not therange of re quire m e nts of a pa rtic u la r job a s it is perform e d in spe c ific se ttings.” Polic y Inte rpre tation Ruling: Title s II & Xv i: Useof Voc ational Ex p e rt &Voc ational Spe c i alist Ev ide nc e , & Othe r Re liable

Oc c upational Information in Disability De c isions , SS 00-4P, 2000 W L 1898704, a

t *2 (S.S.A. De c . 4, 2000). TheDOT provide s only tha t a c a shie r m ust be a ble to “ re a c h[] ” “ fre que ntly ,” but it doe s not spe c ify the ty pe or dire c tion

1 Gutie rre zwithdre w he r re que st for judic ia l notic e in light of our de c ision in

Rounds v . C

omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin . , 807 F.3d 996 (9th C ir. 2015). W e the re fore do not c onside r it. 2of the re a c hing. Though the Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

t ion ha s e lse whe re indic ate d tha

t “ re a c h ing” c an re quire up to the “ e xte n[sion] ” of both “ha nds a nd arm s in a ny dire c tion,” Title

s II & Xv i : C

apability to Do Othe r W

ork -The me dic alVoc ational Rule

s as a Framew o rk

for Evaluating Sole ly

N one x e rtional Impairme nts , SSR

85-15, 1985 W

L 56857, a

t *7 (Ja n. 1, 1985), the

DOT itse lf le ave s a m ple room for “ [a ] VE . . . to provide m ore spe c i fic inform at ion a bout jobs or oc c upations tha

n the DOT.” SS 00-4P, 2000 WL 1898704, a t *2. He re , the ALJ’ s hy pothe tic a l spe c ific a lly

inc lude d Gutie rre z ’ s limita tion on overhe a d re a c hing, but indic at e d tha t Gutie rre z c ould re a c h in a ll othe r dire c tions with her right a rm , a s we ll a s no re stric tions on Gutie rre z ’ s a bility to re a c h with he r le ft arm . W e c onc lude tha

t a VE is e ntitle d to re ly

on his profe s siona l knowle dge and c om m on se nse in de te rm ining tha t a hy pothe tic a l individual c an pe rform work in a give n fie ld notwithsta

nding a m inor limita

t ion on onety

peof “ re a c hing.” B e c a

use the D OT fa ils to spe c i fy

tha t the a bility to re a c h ov e rhe ad w ith both hands is re quire d to pe rform

c a shie r work, the re wa s no a ppa re nt c onflic t be twe e n

the VE’ s c onc lusion tha

t Gutie rre zc ould pe rform

c a shie r work a

nd the DOT’ s ge ne ric job de sc ription. And e ve n a ssum ing the re wa s a n a ppa re nt c onflic t, the voc ationa l e xpe rt m a de c le ar that he ha d c onside re d Gutie rre z ’ s right-a rm lim ita t ions a nd ha d 3re duc e d the num be r of c a shie r positions a

va ila ble to ta ke tha t into a c c ount. The VE the re fore provide d a

re a sona ble e xpla nation. J ohnson v . Shalala , 60 F.3d 1428, 1436 (9th C ir. 1995). The ALJ a lso did not err in disc re diting Gutierre z ’ s te s tim ony . He spe c ific a lly

ide ntifie d Gutie rre z ’ s te stim ony — i.e . tha t she ’ s disa

ble d a n d una ble to susta in full-time work be c a use of he r injury . Se e Tre ic hle r v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin ., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th C ir. 2014). The n he c ite d spe c ific e vide nc e tha t unde rm ine s Gutie rre z ’ s te stim ony . Id. He disc usse d Gutie rre z ’ s da ily a c tivitie s and post-injury

work, a nd c onc lude d

tha t the y sugge s te d a

highe r le ve l of func tioning tha

n she a lle g e d in he r disa

bility a pplic ation a

nd te stim ony . He disc usse d Gutie rre z ’ s post-injury job se arc h a c tivity , a

nd c onc lude d tha

t it shows that she knows he r limita

tions a nd be lie ve s she c an work de spite the m . He a lso re lie d on Gutierre z ’ s nom ina l e ffort during a phy sic a l dia gnostic e xam ination a nd he r re port tha

t ibuprofe n a

nd Ty le nol c ontrolle d he r pa in. The se are spe c ific , c le a r, and c onvinc ing re a sons for re je c ting Gutierre z ’ s c l a im

tha t she is disa

ble d a s a re sult of he r injury . S

e eBray v . C omm’r of Soc . Se c . Admin ., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th C ir. 2009); Parra v . Astrue , 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th C ir. 2007); Thomas v . Barnhart , 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th C ir. 2002).

4Eve n a ssum ing theALJ e rre d in fa iling to ac knowle dge Gutie rre z ’ s c la im

that she re quire d m i d-da

y na ps a s a re sult of he r pa in m e dic ation, a ny e rror wa s ha rm le s s. C

urry v . Sullivan , 925 F.2d 1127, 1131 (9th C ir. 1991) (a ffirm i ng a n ALJ’ s de nia l of be ne fits notwithsta nding tha t the ALJ ha d m a d e an e rrone o us fa c t ua l finding, be c a

use the e rror wa s “ im

m ate ria l ” to theultim ate disa bility de te rm i nation). TheALJ’ s finding tha t Gutie rre z e xa g g e rate d the se ve rity of he r pa in wa s supporte d by

spe c ific and c onvinc i ng e vide nc e . The ba sis for Gutierre z ’ s c la im e d ne e d to ta

ke the m e d ic ation tha

t a lle ge dly

c a use d de bilita

ting drowsine ss wa s thus funda

m e nta l ly unde rc ut. If Gutie rre z did not ne e d to ta ke the m e d ic ation, the n any e rror in fa iling to c onside r the side e ffe c ts of theunne c e ssa ry m e dic ation wa s ultim at e ly

ha rm le ss. AFFIRM E D .

5