Kathleen Chapman v. Carolyn Colvin ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 25 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KATHLEEN A. CHAPMAN, No. 15-35049
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05078-BHS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2016**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Kathleen A. Chapman appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming
the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Chapman’s application for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and
*
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).
XVI of the Social Security Act. At step five of the sequential evaluation process,
the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined that Chapman could perform jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104,
1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
In her written decision, the ALJ failed to mention a two-page “Work
Activity Questionnaire” completed by Chapman’s former supervisor. This
omission was error because the questionnaire includes information concerning
Chapman’s ability to work, and the ALJ was obliged to comment on it. Tobeler v.
Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2014); Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,
454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006). The error, however, was harmless.
Chapman does not challenge any other aspect of the ALJ’s decision,
including the determination that Chapman’s symptom testimony was not fully
credible, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the residual functional capacity
assessment, and the step-five determination that Chapman could perform other jobs
existing in the national economy. The lay witness questionnaire addresses
Chapman’s ability to perform her past work in retail sales. It does not provide
information relevant to Chapman’s ability to perform other work in the national
economy. Accordingly, the ALJ’s failure to discuss this questionnaire is
2
inconsequential to the ALJ’s nondisability determination. See Molina, 674 F.3d at
1117-22.
AFFIRMED.
3