Opinion ID: 694028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Number of Jobs With the Necessary Postural Limitations

Text: 14 An ALJ may not rely on the medical-vocational grid as the sole basis for the determination regarding work potential if the grid does not reflect the claimant's particular limitations. See Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 998 (9th Cir.1985). Here, however, the ALJ specifically stated that the guidelines, along with the vocational expert's testimony regarding availability of jobs within Delgado's particular postural limitations, provided a framework for the analysis. See Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1498, 1498 n. 1 (9th Cir.1984) (noting the use of the grid as a framework for determinations that involve additional limitations not included within the guidelines). The grid alone suggested that a younger, illiterate individual with a marginal education, minimal English language skills and no transferable job skills would not be disabled if the range of sedentary work available to him were not significantly compromised. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404, subpart P, app. 2, 201.00(h). In determining whether the range of sedentary work available in the national economy provided sufficient opportunities for Delgado, the ALJ appropriately gave significant weight to the testimony of vocational expert Mary Torrez, who testified that there were at least 2,500 packing and sorting jobs that Delgado could do within the restrictions that Dr. Mann found necessary. 3 According to our precedent, twenty-five hundred is a significant number of jobs. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(d)(2)(A) (requiring the Secretary to determine that the claimant can still engage in substantial gainful work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy); Barker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 882 F.2d 1474, 1478-80 (9th Cir.1989) (and cases cited therein) (finding that 1,266 is a significant number of jobs). 15 Contrary to Delgado's contention, the ALJ was not bound to accept the vocational expert's conclusions derived from Delgado's more restrictive hypothetical that applied the results of the Aba Pacifica vocational assessment. See Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 756. The medical evidence, especially Dr. Mann's testimony and Delgado's own testimony regarding the amount of weight-lifting he could do without pain, fully support the restrictions in the ALJ's hypotheticals. See Sample, 694 F.2d at 643-44 (noting that an ALJ is the appropriate judge of the weight of the medical evidence in formulating hypotheticals for vocational assessment). Thus, we hold that the ALJ appropriately concluded that there were significant numbers of jobs in the economy which Delgado could perform with his postural limitations.