Maria Gutierrez v. Carolyn Colvin

facts, so we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s judgment upholding an administrative

law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of social security benefits. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d

1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). We reverse only if the ALJ’s decision is not supported

by substantial evidence in the record or is based on legal error. Id.

The ALJ did not err in determining that Gutierrez could perform work as a

cashier despite her inability to reach above shoulder level with her right hand.

First of all, there was no “apparent” conflict between the Dictionary of

Occupational Title’s (“DOT’s”) highly generic description of cashier work and the

vocational expert’s (“VE’s”) testimony. “The DOT lists maximum requirements

of occupations as generally performed, not the range of requirements of a

particular job as it is performed in specific settings.” Policy Interpretation Ruling:

Titles II & Xvi: Use of Vocational Expert & Vocational Specialist Evidence, &

Other Reliable Occupational Information in Disability Decisions, SS 00-4P, 2000

WL 1898704, at *2 (S.S.A. Dec. 4, 2000). The DOT provides only that a…