Summary
holding that ALJ "did not err when he decided that the number of Cashier II jobs, which [the plaintiff] could perform, was significant within the meaning of the law"
Summary of this case from Kelso v. ColvinOpinion
No. 05-55409.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 19, 2007.
Bertram L. Potter, Esq., Potter, Cohen Samulon, Pasadena, CA, Joseph T. Manzo, Hesperia, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kathryn M. Ritchie, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civil Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, Liz Noteware, Esq., SSA-Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Charles F. Eick, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-00430-E.
Before: FERNANDEZ, T. NELSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Joseph T. Manzo appeals the district court's determination that the Administrative Law Judge correctly decided that before Manzo turned 50 years of age he was not disabled. We affirm.
The issue presented is whether work that Manzo could perform existed in significant numbers in the region. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). That is a question of fact. Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 775 (9th Cir. 1986). On this record, the Administrative Law Judge did not err when he decided that the number of Cashier II jobs, which Manzo could perform, was significant within the meaning of the law. See Barker v. Sec. of Health Human Servs., 882 F.2d 1474, 1478-80 (9th Cir. 1989); Martinez, 807 F.2d at 775; see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
AFFIRMED.