Andrew Lawhorn v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Andrew Lawhorn appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Lawhorn contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred by failing to include in his residual functional capacity finding or in his question to the vocational expert his finding at step three of the sequential evaluation process that Law-horn had moderate difficulties with regard to concentration, persistence, or pace. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s judgment de novo. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012). “[A]n ALJ’s assessment of a claimant adequately captures restrictions related to concentration, persistence, or pace where the assessment is consistent with restrictions identified in the medical [record].” Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2008). In Stubbs-Danielson , we held that a finding that a claimant had the residual functional capacity “to perform simple, routine, repetitive sedentary work,” as well as a hypothetical question that reflected the same…