From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glaspy v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 7, 2019
No. 17-35960 (9th Cir. Jun. 7, 2019)

Opinion

No. 17-35960

06-07-2019

DYONDRA D. GLASPY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00013-JLR MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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 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).

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

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Glaspy v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 7, 2019
No. 17-35960 (9th Cir. Jun. 7, 2019)
Case details for

Glaspy v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:DYONDRA D. GLASPY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 7, 2019

Citations

No. 17-35960 (9th Cir. Jun. 7, 2019)

Citing Cases

Zon v. Saul

In other words, the Commissioner could not determine that Mr. Zon is disabled unless he received a reasonable…

Salinas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Indeed, the authority in the Ninth Circuit is to the contrary. E.g., Glaspy v. Berryhill, 771 …