Earnshaw v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM

Connie Earnshaw appeals from the district court’s judgment, which affirmed the ALJ’s finding that she is not disabled. We affirm.

The ALJ found that Earnshaw was of advanced age, could no longer perform her past work, and had a residual functional capacity to perform “a slightly narrowed range of light work.” At the hearing, the vocational expert identified only one sedentary occupation, receptionist, that Earnshaw could perform given her limitations. Because the vocational expert’s testimony designated only one job Earnshaw could perform, within the sedentary category, the sedentary grid rules apply. See Distasio v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1995).

Earnshaw argues that under Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.2006), she must be found disabled as a matter of law because the vocational expert identified only one occupation that she could perform. Lounsburry is inapplicable, however, because the sedentary grid rules (and not the light work grid rules) apply to this case. The outcome is instead controlled by Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2008). In Tommasetti , the vocational expert identified only one sedentary occupation…