Opinion
19-35028
09-09-2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01988-BR
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Christine Ortega appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's judgment de novo. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.
Ortega's testimony regarding the amounts of sitting, standing, and walking required in her past relevant work as a delivery driver provided substantial evidence in support of the administrative law judge's ("ALJ") finding that the work was sedentary as actually performed. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a), 416.967(a) (defining sedentary work). See also Coleman v. Saul, 979 F.3d 751, 755 (9th Cir. 2020) (defining substantial evidence). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding, at Step Four of the sequential analysis, that Ortega could perform her past relevant work as actually performed, and she therefore was not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). See also Ford, 950 F.3d at 1149.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).