Esteban Hurtado v. Nancy Berryhill

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 30 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTEBAN C. HURTADO, No. 17-55845
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:16-cv-00876-AS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alka Sagar, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 29, 2019**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges:
Esteban Hurtado appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social
Security Administration’s denial of his applications for Social Security and
Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant
*
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).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s order de novo and the agency’s
decision for substantial evidence and legal error. Stacy v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 563,
569 (9th Cir. 2016).
Hurtado argues that he had a “composite job” of file clerk and courier and
that the ALJ violated Valencia v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 1082 (9th Cir. 1985). These
arguments were not raised before the agency, and were presented for the first time
in district court. Hurtado, who was represented by counsel at his administrative
hearing, conceded that he worked as a file clerk and performed file clerk duties.
Because Hurtado did not raise either issue, present any evidence, or challenge the
vocational expert’s testimony at the administrative hearing, those arguments are
forfeited. See Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2017); Meanel
v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2