Dean v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 15 2013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