Opinion ID: 722162
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony of Vocational Rehabilitation Experts

Text: 29 Jelinek argues on appeal that the CA abused its discretion in failing to obtain the opinion of a vocational rehabilitation expert. In McKenzie v. General Tel. Co., 41 F.3d 1310, 1317 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1697 (1995), we held that: 30 [C]onsideration of vocational evidence is unnecessary where the evidence in the administrative record supports the conclusion that the claimant does not have an impairment which would prevent him from performing some identifiable job. The plan administrator is not required in every case where the any occupation standard is applicable to collect vocational evidence in order to prove there are available occupations for the claimant. 31 The court, in McKenzie, concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that McKenzie could perform other occupations, and therefore, vocational evidence was not necessary. Similarly, the administrative record in the present case indicates that Jelinek is not totally disabled. Therefore, the CA did not abuse its discretion in failing to obtain the opinion of a vocational expert.