Dyondra Glaspy v. Nancy Berryhill

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 7, 2019
• Docket: 17-35960
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DYONDRA D. GLASPY, No. 17-35960

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00013-JLR

v. MEMORANDUM* NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 5, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges

Dyondra Glaspy appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social

Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s order de novo and 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). agency’s decision for substantial evidence or legal error. Garrison v. Colvin, 759

F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The ALJ properly assessed physical residual functional capacity by

determining how long Glaspy could perform physical functions, including sitting,

in an eight hour day. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. The regulations do not require

that the ALJ incorporate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations

into the assessment. Id. Nor do the regulations require that the ALJ consider

reasonable accommodation to determine whether work exists in the national

economy at step five of the sequential evaluation. Id. § 404.1566. The ALJ

properly applied the law by holding that ADA accommodation was not relevant to

determine whether Glaspy could perform other work at step five of the sequential

evaluation. Id.; Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 803 (1999)

(contrasting the ADA with Social Security disability and explaining that the

agency does not consider ADA reasonable accommodation when it determines

disability); Johnson v. Oregon, 141 F.3d 1361, 1366 (9th Cir. 1988) (same); SSR

11-2P § D (1)(e), 2011 WL 4055665 (Sept. 12, 2011).1

AFFIRMED.

1 Because this legal issue is dispositive, we decline to consider the alternative arguments made by Glaspy. 2