FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA P. WACK, No. 10-16211
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01739-ROS
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of MEMORANDUM
Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
*
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 administrative law judge’s final decision was supported by substantial
evidence and was free of reversible legal error. See Flaten v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ did not err in finding
Appellant’s testimony not fully credible. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539
F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that activities of daily living,
including cooking, house cleaning, doing laundry, and helping husband manage
finances, supported ALJ’s credibility determination). The ALJ’s assessment of
Appellant’s residual functional capacity was supported by substantial evidence and
free of reversible legal error. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.
2005) (“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is
the ALJ's conclusion that must be upheld.”). The ALJ’s finding that Appellant
could perform jobs that exist in substantial numbers in the national economy was
supported by substantial evidence and free of reversible legal error. See Bayliss v.
Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The hypothetical that the ALJ
posed to the [vocational expert] contained all of the limitations that the ALJ found
credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record.”). The ALJ
adequately informed Appellant of her right to counsel and Appellant suffered no
prejudice resulting from her lack of representation. See Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d
1545, 1551 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Lack of counsel does not affect the validity of the
2
hearing unless the plaintiff can demonstrate prejudice or unfairness in the
administrative proceedings.”). Finally, the ALJ adequately developed the
administrative record.
AFFIRMED.
3