Unpublished Disposition, 889 F.2d 1094 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM

Haskins appeals from a summary judgment entered by the district judge in his action for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423. He sought judicial review of the final decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the Secretary's motion and affirmed the Secretary's final decision. The district court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Based on the reasons stated in District Court Judge Vukasin's order granting summary judgment dated July 18, 1988, we affirm the district court's determination that substantial evidence supports the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) and that remand was not necessary because Haskins did not show good cause for his failure to introduce the proposed evidence at his administrative hearing.

We also hold that it was not necessary for the Secretary to call a vocational expert because the production burden never shifted to the Secretary. See Miller v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 845, 850 (9th Cir. 1985). In addition, the Secretary did not deprive Haskins of procedural due process by waiting until the final decision to define his past relevant work with a specific Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) listing. Since the ALJ relied upon Haskins's own description of his job requirements in reaching his decision and the DOT listing of Haskins's past relevant work was consistent with those statements, there was no denial of procedural due process.

AFFIRMED.

Note: This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the Courts of this Circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.