SUSAN DEAN V. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY A, No. 12-35689 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 12-35689 SUSAN C. DEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00738-MO v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2013** Portland, Oregon Before: ALARCÃ N, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Susan Dean appeals a district court judgment that affirmed the decision of the Social Security Commissioner denying her claim for Supplemental Social Security * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Income disability benefits (SSI). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 1. Dean claims that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by rejecting lay witness testimony without giving specific and legitimate reasons germane to the witness. See Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009). The ALJ, however, expressly stated that she discounted Ms. Prettyman s statement because it was contradicted by Dean s own allegations and the medical evidence. 2. Dean also claims that the ALJ erred because she did not adequately consider her step 3 finding that Dean has a moderate restriction in her concentration, persistence, and pace in the Residual Function Capacity finding and vocational hypothetical at steps 4 and 5. To the contrary, the ALJ expressly adopted the restriction identified in the medical testimony, which took into account Dean s nonexertional limitations. See Stubbs Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

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.