Ramon Angulo, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMON A. ANGULO, Jr., No. 12-55736
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00333-AG-AGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 3, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, NOONAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Angulo appeals the district court’s judgment upholding the decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny him Supplemental Security Income
benefits. We affirm the district court’s judgment.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Angulo argues that the ALJ relied improperly on evidence outside the closed
disability period in finding that his statements about his symptoms were not
entirely credible. Angulo’s testimony that he played racquetball and could do a
week’s worth of grocery shopping at a time referred to his activities after the
closed period, and therefore the ALJ should not have relied on it. The ALJ’s other
reasons for rejecting Angulo’s testimony were, however, “specific, clear, and
convincing,” and based on a rational interpretation of the evidence. Lingenfelter v.
Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). In particular, the
ALJ could properly rely upon Angulo’s descriptions of his condition and activities
beginning on October 25, 2006, which is when the period of Angulo’s claim
began. Because the ALJ’s credibility determination was still supported by
substantial evidence, it must be affirmed. Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1155,
1162–63 (9th Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence also supported the ALJ’s residual functional capacity
determination that Angulo was capable of performing light or sedentary work, with
certain nonexertional restrictions, limited to nonpublic simple repetitive tasks. The
ALJ adopted in full the determinations of the three state agency doctors who
reviewed Angulo’s records. These determinations were consistent with the
2
opinions of Angulo’s treating physicians and Angulo himself, and thus constitute
“substantial evidence.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002)
(citation omitted).
The use of the grids was appropriate. A vocational expert is only required
when there are “significant and sufficiently severe non-exertional limitations not
accounted for in the grid.” Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Angulo’s postural and environmental
limitations did not significantly limit his ability to do unskilled light or sedentary
work. SSR 83-12; SSR 83-14. Nor did his restriction to nonpublic, simple,
repetitive work. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 202.00(b), (g).
AFFIRMED.
3