SMITH LIPSKA v. SAUL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-25No. No. 19-15502

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that Smith-Lipska is not disabled because substantial evidence demonstrated she possesses transferable skills suited to jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.

Betsy Smith-Lipska, a former food counter supervisor, sought disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, but an administrative law judge found her capable of performing other work and denied her claim. The district court upheld this decision, and Smith-Lipska appealed. The court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the conclusion that she was not disabled.

The court found that substantial evidence existed because the administrative law judge identified transferable skills from Smith-Lipska's prior work—specifically ordering, scheduling, and customer service abilities—that could be applied to three types of jobs for which hundreds of thousands of positions exist across the country. A vocational expert provided testimony supporting these job availability figures, and Smith-Lipska did not challenge this testimony. Based on this evidence, the court determined that the administrative law judge properly concluded she could perform other work.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supported a disability denial based on transferable skills
Admissibility and weight of vocational expert testimony regarding job availability
Applicability of the 'substantial evidence' standard in reviewing administrative disability determinations

Procedural posture

The case comes before the court on appeal from a district court's grant of summary judgment affirming an administrative law judge's denial of disability benefits.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Betsy Smith-Lipska, a former grocery store food counter supervisor, appeals the district courts grant of summary judgment for Defendant (the “Commissioner”). The district court upheld the administrative law judges (“ALJ”) decision that Smith-Lipska is not disabled, and is therefore ineligible for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). We review de novo the decision of the district court that substantial evidence supported the ALJs decision. Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 2003); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A vocational experts testimony may constitute substantial evidence. Biestek v. Berryhill, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1155, 203 L.Ed.2d 504 (2019). We affirm.

A disabled person is eligible for DIB and SSI. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a)(1)(E) (DIB) and 1381a (SSI). A person is not disabled if she can do other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g) and 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g). That work must “exist[ ] in significant numbers in the national economy.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012).

Here, the ALJ determined that Smith-Lipska was capable of performing other work with “very little, if any, vocational adjustment.” See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, § 201.00(f). Specifically, the ALJ stated that Smith-Lipskas ordering, scheduling, and customer service skills are transferable to the jobs of order clerk, customer complaint clerk, and scheduler, for which 88,000, 826,000, and 233,000 positions are available nationwide, respectively. The vocational expert provided unchallenged testimony to these facts. Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the ground that substantial evidence supported the Commissioners determination. Thus, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.