Jessie M. Lewis v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSIE M. LEWIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15394
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01654-SMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in finding that Jessie Lewis
could perform the positions of cashier (DOT #211.462-010) and storage rental
clerk (DOT #295.367-026) despite her limitation to “work involving simple
FILED
JAN 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
instructions.” Those positions require level 3 reasoning, per the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (DOT). We have held that an apparent conflict exists between
a limitation to “simple, routine, or repetitive tasks” and “the demands of Level 3
Reasoning.” Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 843–44 (9th Cir. 2015). The ALJ
therefore was required to “elicit a reasonable explanation for the conflict before
relying on the [vocational expert] evidence to support a determination or decision
about whether [Lewis] is disabled.” SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *2.
2. The ALJ did not err in finding that Lewis could perform the position of
office helper (DOT #239.567-010), which requires level 2 reasoning. There is no
apparent unresolved conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony that Lewis
could perform that position and the DOT or its companion publication, the
Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (SCO). See SSR 00-4p at *1. SSR 00-4p does not require the
ALJ to inquire into potential conflicts between vocational expert evidence and all
possible companion publications to the DOT. Lewis cites no case from our court
that has required an ALJ to resolve a conflict between vocational expert evidence
and information provided in the Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs (U.S.
Department of Labor 1991) (RHAJ). We therefore decline to hold that SSR 00-
4p’s requirements were triggered here, even if a conflict existed with the RHAJ.

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
The vocational expert testified that “there are 10,000” office helper jobs in
California. This qualifies as a “significant” number of jobs that Lewis could
perform “in the region where [she] lives.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B);
Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 527–28 (9th Cir. 2014).
Substantial evidence therefore supports the ALJ’s finding that Lewis was not
disabled. See id. at 522–23.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --