Jeannie Bruesch v. Carolyn Colvin

Good Law
609 F. App'x 481
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 8, 201514-35124California438 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Jeannie Bruesch appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Bruesch 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, and' doctors’ findings, that Bruesch 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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.