Colleen Marie Kauwoh v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COLLEEN MARIE KAUWOH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-56030
D.C. No.
3:15-cv-01621-JLS-MDD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Colleen Marie Kauwoh appeals the district court’s decision affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
* 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).
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
At step five of the sequential analysis, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
did not err in relying on the testimony of a vocational expert. The ALJ’s residual
functional capacity finding included a limitation of a sit/stand option. Although
the hypothetical question posed by the ALJ did not include this limitation, the
vocational expert’s testimony shows that she understood that Kauwoh had this
limitation and she incorporated this limitation in identifying the jobs that Kauwoh
could perform. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)
(holding that court will uphold ALJ’s findings if their logic may reasonably be
discerned); cf. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2005)
(holding that in order properly to rely on a vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ
must present the expert with a hypothetical question that includes all of the
limitations that the ALJ finds credible and supported by substantial evidence in the
record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --