CHRISTINE ORTEGA V. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, No. 19-35028 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 9 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTINE JANE ORTEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 19-35028 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01988-BR v. MEMORANDUM* KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 7, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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. 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.