NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 11 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SUE MARIE WRIGHT, No. 14-35066
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00723-MO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Sue Marie Wright appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court did not deny Wright due process by ruling from the bench
rather than issuing a written decision. The district court’s oral ruling, recorded in a
written transcript, together with the administrative record, provide sufficient facts
and reasoning to allow Wright an understanding of the disposition of her case, and
to enable an informed review by this court. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1226 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that meaningful review of
an administrative decision requires access to the facts and reasons supporting that
decision); cf. United States v. Sesma-Hernandez, 253 F.3d 403, 405 (9th Cir. 2001)
(en banc) (holding that “oral findings on a transcribed record are sufficient to meet
the ‘in writing’ requirement of due process” for a district court’s decision in a
criminal case to revoke supervised release).
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in failing to evaluate
evidence regarding Wright’s employment record from 2002. This evidence was
not probative of whether Wright lacked the residual functional capacity to perform
any work during the period beginning in October 2008, her alleged disability onset
date. See Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 833 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Evidence is
relevant when it has ‘any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence’”(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401(a))). Even assuming
2
the evidence was relevant, any error on the part of the ALJ was harmless because
the employment records “did not describe any limitations beyond those [Wright]
herself described, which the ALJ discussed at length and rejected based on
well-supported, clear and convincing reasons.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104,
1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (footnote omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3