FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRENE THOMAS, No. 08-17611
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-06059-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security of the United States of
America,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and STAFFORD, Senior
District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable William Stafford, Senior United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
Irene Thomas appeals the district court’s adverse summary judgment
upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for
disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and we affirm the district
court’s order.
A district court’s order affirming denial of benefits is reviewed de novo.
Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 590 (9th Cir. 2009). We must uphold the
Commissioner's decision to deny benefits unless it is based on legal error or is not
supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 591. Because the factual and procedural
background is familiar to the parties, we do not recount it here.
In her application, Thomas alleged disability due to bilateral carpal tunnel
syndrome, wrist tendinitis, de Quervain’s tenosynovitis, and bilateral medical
epicondylitis. At Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, the administrate law
judge (“ALJ”) found that Thomas could perform a significant number of jobs
existing in the national and regional economies and was, therefore, not disabled
within the meaning of the Act. We conclude that the ALJ’s decision was
supported by substantial evidence and was not based on legal error. Indeed, even if
we were to assume—for the sake of argument—that Thomas’s claims of error have
2
merit, we would nonetheless conclude that the record supports the Commissioner’s
decision to deny benefits.
AFFIRMED.
3