Oliver v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNE OLIVER, No. 12-35508
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:11-cv-00628-HO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 8, 2013
Portland, Oregon
Before: ALARCÓN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
June Oliver appeals from a district court judgment that affirmed the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for Social
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
affirm.
I
Oliver contends that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not use “work-
related terms” in assessing her residual functional capacity (RFC), thus rendering
the assessment invalid. We disagree. The RFC assessment properly accounts for
the limitations in Oliver’s stamina, memory, and ability to concentrate. See Stubbs-
Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that an RFC
assessment adequately captures limitations in broad functional areas if it is
consistent with limitations evidenced in the medical opinions).
II
Oliver also contends that the ALJ erred in omitting the limitations assessed
by Dr. Linda Jensen. The ALJ determined at step five of the sequential evaluation
process that Oliver could perform the requirements of a garment sorter or small-
products assembler. Neither occupation requires any of the physical demands or
environmental conditions implicated by Dr. Jensen’s assessment. See Selected
Characteristics of Occupations in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational
Requirements 203, 284 (rev. ed. 1993) (listing the characteristics of garment
sorting and small-products assembly). Any error in failing to address explicitly
2
Dr. Jensen’s findings therefore is harmless. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454
F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006).
III
Finally, Oliver argues that the record does not support the ALJ’s findings.
This claim has been forfeited, however, because Oliver failed to raise it before the
district court. Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
3