Hampton

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Hampton appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). 1 Hampton alleges that he should have been determined disabled because of his severe pain and weakness in his neck and right elbow. 2 After considering medical reports and the testimony of Hampton, a medical expert, and a vocational expert, the ALJ found that Hampton retained the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as a movie extra. The district court, through the Magistrate Judge acting by consent, affirmed the decision of the ALJ. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm the district court’s order.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that the movie extra work was past relevant work. “Past relevant work is work that [the claimant has] done within the past 15 years, that was substantial gainful activity, and that lasted long enough for [the claimant] to learn to do it.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560 (b)(1). In 1987 and 1989, Hampton earned enough as a movie extra to satisfy the regulatory presumption that this work was substantial gainful activity. Hampton’s attorney did not attempt…