Case Name: Joyce SHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security; Michael J. Astrue, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-25
Citations: 233 F. App'x 705
Docket Number: No. 05-16065
Parties: Joyce SHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security; Michael J. Astrue, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 233
Pages: 705–706

Head Matter:
Joyce SHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security; Michael J. Astrue, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-16065.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 19, 2007.
Filed May 25, 2007.
Maria V. Daquipa, Esq., Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Michael J. Astrue is substituted for his predecessor Jo Anne Barnhart as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joyce Sherman appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
The narrow question before us regarding Sherman's current application is whether she was able to show a change in her condition between February 1992, when her first benefits application was rejected, and December 1994, her date last insured. The evidence in the record does not support her contention that there was a material change. The conclusion that she could perform her past relevant work was based on evidence that there had been no change in Sherman's residual function capacity ("RFC"). Because Sherman's RFC had not changed, the ALJ's reference to prior vocational expert testimony that supported the earlier RFC finding did not deprive Sherman of the opportunity to cross-examine the expert. She had ample opportunity to cross-examine the expert when he testified in the first instance and she declined to do so.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.