JUNE OLIVER V. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 12-35508 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUNE OLIVER, No. 12-35508 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:11-cv-00628-HO v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 8, 2013 Portland, Oregon Before: ALARCÃ N, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. June Oliver appeals from a district court judgment that affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for Social * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. I Oliver contends that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not use workrelated terms in assessing her residual functional capacity (RFC), thus rendering the assessment invalid. We disagree. The RFC assessment properly accounts for the limitations in Oliver s stamina, memory, and ability to concentrate. See StubbsDanielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that an RFC assessment adequately captures limitations in broad functional areas if it is consistent with limitations evidenced in the medical opinions). II Oliver also contends that the ALJ erred in omitting the limitations assessed by Dr. Linda Jensen. The ALJ determined at step five of the sequential evaluation process that Oliver could perform the requirements of a garment sorter or smallproducts assembler. Neither occupation requires any of the physical demands or environmental conditions implicated by Dr. Jensen s assessment. See Selected Characteristics of Occupations in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Requirements 203, 284 (rev. ed. 1993) (listing the characteristics of garment sorting and small-products assembly). Any error in failing to address explicitly 2 Dr. Jensen s findings therefore is harmless. Stout v. Comm r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006). III Finally, Oliver argues that the record does not support the ALJ s findings. This claim has been forfeited, however, because Oliver failed to raise it before the district court. Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
