Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Robert Ward appealed the district court's order affirming the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. The administrative law judge (ALJ) had denied benefits after finding Ward's subjective symptom testimony not fully credible and determining he could perform jobs existing in the national economy, including harvest worker, housekeeper, and laundry worker positions. The district court affirmed the ALJ's decision, and Ward appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviewed the district court's order de novo, setting aside the denial of benefits only if the ALJ's decision was based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence. The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges N.R. Smith and Johnstone and District Judge William Horsley Orrick sitting by designation, determined the case was suitable for decision without oral argument.
Ward challenged three aspects of the ALJ's decision: (1) the discounting of his subjective symptom testimony regarding back pain, mental health symptoms, and walking difficulties; (2) the reliance on vocational expert testimony that he could perform the harvest worker occupation; and (3) the finding that he could perform occupations requiring Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) Level two despite a limitation to one- to two-step simple tasks.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the ALJ's decision on all grounds. First, the court held that the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount Ward's subjective symptom testimony. The ALJ properly relied on inconsistencies between Ward's allegations and objective medical evidence, including an unremarkable spinal X-ray, mental health records rating symptoms as 'mild' and Ward's own reports that he 'felt much better,' his daily activities (barbequing, yard work, shopping, driving, bike riding, church attendance), and a consultative examiner's opinion that he could stand and walk six hours in a workday.
Second, the court found no error in the ALJ's reliance on the vocational expert's testimony regarding the harvest worker occupation. The ALJ limited Ward to frequent handling with the right upper extremity, and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) codes harvest worker as requiring handling 'frequently.' The expert withdrew the cleaner occupation because it requires constant handling, but that withdrawal did not create a conflict with the frequent-handling harvest worker occupation. Because no apparent conflict existed between the expert's testimony and the DOT, the ALJ had no duty to consult the expert further.
Third, the court held that any error regarding SVP Level two occupations was harmless. The harvest worker occupation requires only SVP Level one and independently supplies a sufficient number of jobs in the national economy to support the ALJ's decision. Additionally, both harvest worker and housekeeper occupations fall under GED Reasoning Level one, which the court in Rounds v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration found consistent with a one- to two-step limitation. The court declined to decide whether Rounds should be extended to SVP Levels because the harvest worker occupation alone rendered any potential error harmless.
Key Takeaways
- An ALJ may discount a claimant's subjective symptom testimony with clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence, including inconsistencies with objective medical records, the claimant's own statements of improvement, and daily activities that contradict alleged limitations.
- When a vocational expert's testimony aligns with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles' requirements for a specific occupation, no apparent conflict exists, and the ALJ has no duty to further consult the expert even if the expert withdraws a different occupation.
- An ALJ's error regarding a claimant's ability to perform one job is harmless if the claimant can perform other jobs that independently supply a significant number of positions in the national economy.
- The Ninth Circuit distinguishes between General Educational Development (GED) Reasoning levels and Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) levels, and declined to extend precedent regarding GED Reasoning conflicts to SVP levels where the error was harmless.
- A limitation to one- to two-step simple tasks is consistent with occupations requiring GED Reasoning Level one, as established in Rounds v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the substantial evidence standard of review in Social Security disability appeals and clarifies the interplay between vocational expert testimony, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and the harmless error doctrine. The decision confirms that ALJs need not probe for conflicts between vocational expert testimony and the DOT when no apparent conflict exists, and that the withdrawal of one occupation by an expert does not undermine reliance on another occupation that matches the DOT's requirements.
The court's refusal to extend Rounds to SVP Levels while affirming on harmless error grounds preserves the distinction between GED Reasoning and SVP metrics for future cases. Practitioners should note that even if an ALJ errs in identifying jobs at a higher SVP level, the decision will stand if at least one properly identified job at a lower SVP level provides a sufficient occupational base. The disposition also illustrates how daily activity evidence and consultative examination findings can substantiate an adverse credibility determination.