Dorothy Nursement v. Michael Astrue
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Dorothy Nursement (“Nursement”) appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) final decision denying her application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits. Nursement claims that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred when he failed to give pre-clusive effect to a finding from the adjudication of her prior application for benefits. Because new and material evidence supports the ALJ’s finding, we affirm.
Nursement argues that administrative res judicata applies to the prior finding of her residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform the mental requirements of work. Nursement contends that the ALJ erred when he omitted a prior finding that she lacks the capacity to perform any work that requires math or that requires the ability to read at a second or third grade level. We review de novo the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of social security benefits, and may set aside a denial of benefits only if it is based upon legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 5 39 F.3d 1169 , 1172 (9th Cir.2008); see 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).