CATHY LANDEROS V. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, No. 21-56363 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CATHY E. LANDEROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-56363 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-06348-JPR v. MEMORANDUM* KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jean Rosenbluth, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Appellant Cathy E. Landeros timely appeals the district court’s judgment * 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts of the case, so we do not recite them here. We review the denial of benefits de novo and must uphold the ALJ’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). An ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). At step two, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment”—if the ALJ finds the claimant has no severe impairments, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. If the ALJ finds the claimant has a “severe” impairment, the ALJ continues the analysis and ultimately evaluates at step five whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform any work, in which case the claimant is not disabled. Id. Landeros argues that the ALJ erred in not finding her fibromyalgia to be “severe” at step two, and that this error undermined the ALJ’s conclusion that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work with some nonexertional limitations and therefore was not disabled. Even assuming the ALJ erred at step two, any error was harmless. “[A]n 2 ALJ’s error is harmless where it is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted), superseded on other grounds by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a). “In this context, we have said that an error is harmless so long as there remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision and the error does not negate the validity of the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Although the ALJ did not find Landeros’s fibromyalgia to be “severe,” he found that she had severe impairments of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, anxiety, and depression, and proceeded through the rest of the five steps of analysis. The ALJ then accounted for Landeros’s limitations, including those caused by fibromyalgia, by restricting Landeros to a reduced range of noncomplex routine work at the light exertion level “in consideration of [Landeros’s] history of some upper extremity impairment.” This restriction was supported by the evidence in the record—including the evidence Landeros points to regarding her chronic pain and fibromyalgia. Landeros argues that medical notes from Dr. Evans and Dr. Park suggest greater limitations than the ALJ found, but neither of the notes from Dr. Evans or Dr. Park identify how or to what extent any specific work activity would be affected. Landeros does not point to, and the record does not support a finding of, any functional limitations that the ALJ should have considered and did not. See 3 Burch, 400 F.3d at 683. Accordingly, the ALJ’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and any error in not finding Landeros’s fibromyalgia “severe” did not negate the validity of the ALJ’s conclusion at step five of the analysis. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115. AFFIRMED. 4
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.
