Dorothy Wright v. Nancy Berryhill, 692 F. App'x 496

Plaintiff Dorothy Dale Wright applied for disability insurance benefits; the ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed.
Central issue: whether the ALJ properly relied on vocational expert (VE) testimony that jobs exist in significant numbers the claimant can perform given her RFC, age, education, and work history.
The VE based job-number estimates on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, and her professional experience.
Wright’s counsel did not cross-examine the VE or submit interrogatories at the hearing challenging the VE’s numbers.
After the decision, Wright submitted a motion to alter or amend the judgment presenting alternative job numbers and criticizing the VE’s sources.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s affirmation de novo and upheld the Commissioner’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ permissibly relied on VE testimony about job numbers	Wright argued the VE’s job-number testimony was unreliable and insufficiently supported	Commissioner argued the VE relied on reliable sources (DOT, BLS, experience) and ALJ’s reliance was proper	Court held VE testimony was properly relied upon; Wright failed to rebut presumption of regularity
Whether counsel’s post-hearing challenge sufficed to undermine VE evidence	Wright asserted post-judgment submissions showed VE’s numbers were wrong	Commissioner maintained counsel forfeited challenge by not cross-examining or submitting interrogatories at hearing	Court held late challenge insufficient; absence of persuasive challenge defeats reversible error claim

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for ALJ disability determinations)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (VE’s recognized expertise provides foundation for vocational testimony)