Bruce Edginton v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Bruce L. Edginton appeals the district court’s judgment' affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Edginton’s applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income Under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Edginton alleged disability due to back problems, pain disorder, and bipolar disorder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012), and affirm.

1. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ’s”) decision to rely on the vocational expert’s analysis of the job market. .First, the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s expertise to explain complex vocational issues. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(e); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that an ALJ may rely on the vocational expert’s testimony regarding number of relevant jobs).' Second, the vocational expert reasonably opined that Edginton’s alternative job calculation was not correct, and the ALJ was within his discretion to credit the expert’s conclusions. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that an ALJ is responsible…