Helena K. Wilson v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HELENA K. WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-56774
No. 2:16-cv-09086-GJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gail J. Standish, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 25, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Helena K. Wilson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de
* 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
APR 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
Wilson did not waive her challenge to the administrative law judge’s
(ALJ’s) reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony. Wilson’s argument
concerns the meaning of the word “incidental” in relation to Wilson’s limitations
as outlined in the residual functional capacity (“RFC”).
On the merits, Wilson fails to establish a conflict between the vocational
expert’s testimony and the limitation in her RFC to “incidental” interpersonal
contact. Wilson relies upon a limited dictionary definition of “incidental” and then
argues incompatibility with the agency’s regulations for “basic work activity”
requirements. Wilson’s incompatibility argument fails because Wilson cites no
support from the Act, case law, agency regulations, or any other agency guidance
materials. In sum, Wilson has not demonstrated the ALJ committed legal error by
relying upon the vocational expert’s testimony. See Diedrich v. Berryhill, 874
F.3d 634, 638 (9th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --