FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHESTER L. MITCHELL, No. 10-15816
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01624-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO, 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 Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Chester Mitchell appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mitchell contends the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not properly
take into account Mitchell’s severe borderline intellectual functioning. The ALJ
considered it, however, and concluded that the impairment resulted in few
functional limitations, none of which were work-related. The ALJ noted that
Mitchell was diagnosed with borderline intellectual functioning, not mental
retardation, and found that Mitchell had been able to work in the competitive
workplace as a construction laborer.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Stoltz observed
that Mitchell was alert, cooperative, and well-oriented in all spheres, and
concluded that Mitchell’s only limitations were that he should not operate heavy
machinery or drive. Dr. Spindell opined that Mitchell could perform work
activities on a consistent basis without special or additional supervision, could
complete a workweek without interruptions resulting from his psychiatric
condition, could accept instructions from supervisors, and could interact with co-
workers and the public. Furthermore, Dr. Spindell stated that Mitchell had the
2
ability to perform daily activities, could maintain social relationships, had the
ability to sustain concentration, persistence, or pace, and could function outside
highly supportive arrangements. Dr. Spindell thus concluded that Mitchell could
enter the workforce in several entry-level capacities.
The record reflects that Mitchell’s borderline intellectual functioning affects
his inability to perform detailed and complex tasks. The ALJ, however, considered
such limitations when he concluded that Mitchell could perform unskilled jobs.
See 20 C.F.R. § 416.968(a) (“Unskilled work is work which needs little or no
judgment to do simple duties that can be learned on the job in a short period of
time.” (emphasis added)). Mitchell does not allege what other limitations he has as
a result of his borderline intellectual functioning. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue,
539 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the only concrete limitation
resulting from claimant’s severe borderline intellectual functioning was her
inability to perform complex tasks).
AFFIRMED.
3