Tom Masterson v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOM RAY MASTERSON, No. 19-35729
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01116-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2022**
Before: D.W. NELSON, BRESS, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Tom Ray Masterson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance
benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153-54 (9th
Cir. 2020) (citation omitted), and we affirm.
The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that Masterson had the residual
functional capacity to perform work at all exertional levels and had solely
nonexertional limitations. Accordingly, at Step Five of the sequential analysis, the
ALJ properly consulted a vocational expert, rather than relying on the Medical-
Vocational Guidelines, or “grids.” See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. P., app. 2, Rule
200.00(e)(1) (the grids “do not direct factual conclusions of disabled or not
disabled for individuals with solely nonexertional types of impairments”); Social
Security Ruling 85-15, 1985 WL 56857, at *3; cf. Maxwell v. Saul, 971 F.3d 1128,
1130 (9th Cir. 2020) (reasoning that when the claimant has both exertional and
nonexertional limitations, the ALJ must consult the grids first). The vocational
expert’s testimony regarding light jobs that Masterson could perform did not
require the ALJ to find that Masterson was capable only of sedentary or light work,
and therefore to consult the grids. Cf. Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152, 1157
(9th Cir. 1989) (reasoning that the ALJ erred in failing to apply grids because the
vocational expert and other witnesses testified that the claimant was capable of
performing only sedentary or light work, which dictated a finding of disabled
under the grids). Unlike the vocational expert in Cooper, the vocational expert
here testified that, given Masterson’s nonexertional limitations, she found jobs that
2
he could perform, but none of those jobs required medium (or heavy) exertion.
This testimony did not trigger any duty to consult the grids or require the ALJ to
apply the grid rule applicable to light work. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. P., app.
2, Rule 200.00(e)(1).
AFFIRMED.
3