Dean v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration , 545 F. App'x 617 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                NOV 15 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SUSAN C. DEAN,                                  No. 12-35689
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00738-MO
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
    SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 8, 2013**
    Portland, Oregon
    Before: ALARCÓN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Susan Dean appeals a district court judgment that affirmed the decision of the
    Social Security Commissioner denying her claim for Supplemental Social Security
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Income disability benefits (SSI). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
    affirm.
    1. Dean claims that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by rejecting lay
    witness testimony without giving specific and legitimate reasons germane to the
    witness. See Bruce v. Astrue, 
    557 F.3d 1113
    , 1115 (9th Cir. 2009). The ALJ,
    however, expressly stated that she discounted Ms. Prettyman’s statement because it
    was contradicted by Dean’s own allegations and the medical evidence.
    2. Dean also claims that the ALJ erred because she did not adequately consider
    her step 3 finding that Dean has “a moderate restriction in her concentration,
    persistence, and pace” in the Residual Function Capacity finding and vocational
    hypothetical at steps 4 and 5. To the contrary, the ALJ expressly adopted the
    restriction identified in the medical testimony, which took into account Dean’s
    nonexertional limitations. See Stubbs–Danielson v. Astrue, 
    539 F.3d 1169
    (9th Cir.
    2008).
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-35689

Citation Numbers: 545 F. App'x 617

Judges: Alarcón, Smith, Hurwitz

Filed Date: 11/15/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024