Esther Argueta v. Nancy Berryhill , 703 F. App'x 460 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 20 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ESTHER DIAZ ARGUETA,                            No.    16-16682
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01110-SKO
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
    Commissioner Social Security,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 15, 2017**
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges
    Esther Diaz Argueta appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
    Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability
    insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
    Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    novo, Molina v. Astrue, 
    674 F.3d 1104
    , 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
    The administrative law judge did not err in finding that Argueta’s work as a
    sedentary produce sorter, following an on-the-job injury, was past relevant work
    for purposes of step four of the sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f);
    Stacy v. Colvin, 
    825 F.3d 563
    , 569 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that at step four the
    claimant bears the burden of proving that she cannot perform her past relevant
    work). Argueta’s sedentary sorter work from February to May 2010 met the three
    requirements for past relevant work. It was performed within 15 years of the
    ALJ’s decision, which was filed on December 13, 2013. See 20 C.F.R.
    § 404.1560(b)(1). The job, which the vocational expert testified was unskilled
    work, with a special vocational level (“SVP”) of 2, lasted long enough for Argueta
    to learn how to do it. See Social Security Ruling 00-4p (stating that an unskilled
    occupation, with an SVP of 1 or 2, can be learned within 30 days). In addition,
    Argueta’s earnings record shows that she was paid more than the $1,000-per-
    month threshold for substantial gainful activity for 2010 when averaged over the
    five months that she worked. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574(b)(2) (explaining
    calculation of threshold); Social Security Ruling 83-85 (explaining that earnings
    from seasonal work are averaged over the actual period of work involved).
    Argueta argues that her sedentary sorter work should be considered an
    unsuccessful work attempt, rather than past relevant work. The district court
    2
    correctly concluded that Argueta’s work was substantial gainful activity and was
    not an unsuccessful work attempt because it did not end due to the claimant’s
    impairments or because of the removal of a special condition that enabled her to
    work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574; Gatliff v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    172 F.3d 690
    , 692 (9th Cir. 1999). When the ALJ asked, “So if the season had still been
    going on and there were still mandarins to sort, you would have been able to
    continue doing that with the chair?” Argueta replied, “Yes, Your Honor.”
    Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that the job ended
    due to a layoff. See 
    Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110
    . The district court also correctly
    noted that an unsuccessful work attempt cannot logically take place prior to the
    alleged onset of a claimant’s disability. Social Security Ruling states: “The UWA
    [unsuccessful work attempt] concept was designed to provide us an equitable
    means, in making SGA [substantial gainful activity] determinations, to disregard
    relatively brief work attempts that do not demonstrate sustained SGA. We will not
    consider work we determine to be an UWA as substantial gainful activity when we
    determine if you are under a disability or when we determine if your disability has
    ceased.” Argueta, however, did not claim that she was under a disability until after
    she stopped working in May 2010.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-16682

Citation Numbers: 703 F. App'x 460

Judges: Canby, Trott, Graber

Filed Date: 11/20/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024