Summary
finding ALJ did not err in failing to ask VE about any conflict between his testimony and DOT because there was no showing of apparent conflict
Summary of this case from Rosa H. v. SaulOpinion
No. 17-56614
04-29-2019
BONNIE RUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-01513-JDE MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
John D. Early, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Bonnie Ruth appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Ruth's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The ALJ did not err by failing to mention explicitly a reference to an EMG study that was not probative of any functional limitations. See Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the ALJ is not required to discuss evidence that is neither significant nor probative). Substantial evidence supports the review by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the medical evidence and assessment of the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC), which properly includes all limitations consistent with and supported by substantial evidence. See Bray v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (RFC must include all limitations supported by the record).
The ALJ did not err by failing to ask the Vocational Expert (VE) about any conflict between his testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) because there was no apparent conflict between Ruth's RFC and "the [DOT's] listing of job requirements that are essential, integral, or expected." Gutierrez v. Colvin, 844 F.3d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 2016).
The ALJ properly discredited Ruth's testimony based on lack of supporting medical evidence. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that lack of supporting objective evidence may be one reason to discredit claimant testimony). Ruth waived any additional arguments by failing to adequately raise them before the district court. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that Social Security disability claimant waived issues on appeal by failing to raise them before the district court).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to alter the judgment. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review).
AFFIRMED.