FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 08 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA MARY PETITE, in her No. 16-55314
capacity as personal representative for the
Estate of CARL PETITE, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00543-GJS
Plaintiff-Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gail J. Standish, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN,*** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Steven Paul Logan, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Martha Mary Petite appeals a district court order affirming the denial of an
application filed by her late husband, Carl Petite, for disability insurance benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we review the district court’s order de novo. Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d
1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
At step five of the sequential evaluation process, the administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) concluded that Petite was capable of performing “other work that
exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d
1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(v). Petite was unable to perform the full range of “medium work”
under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) because of his
significant nonexertional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2; 20
C.F.R. § 404.1569a(c). As a result, the ALJ properly consulted a vocational
expert, who testified that Petite could perform work as a data entry clerk. See
Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1102–04. There are 272,810 positions for a data entry clerk in
the national economy. The ALJ’s step-five determination is supported by
substantial evidence, and is not legally erroneous. See Hoopai, 499 F.3d at 1074.
Petite argues that the ALJ’s application of Guidelines section 203.08 was
erroneous because he could not perform the full range of “medium work.” See 20
2
C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 203.08. However, in addition to relying on a
vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ was permitted to use the “medium work”
grid as a “framework” for decision-making since Petite’s exertional limitations
match the definition of “medium work.” See Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152,
1155 (9th Cir. 1989); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 200.00(e)(2); 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1567(c).
AFFIRMED.
3