Lester v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:23-cv-05355

Plaintiff Richard L., born in 1984 with a high school education, previously worked various manual labor jobs and ceased employment in October 2018 due to disabilities.
He applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) in September 2019, alleging disability since October 2018.
The application was denied at initial, reconsideration, and ALJ stages; the ALJ found he could perform certain jobs and was not disabled.
Plaintiff challenged the final denial in federal court, asserting errors in the finding of employability and the number of available jobs.
The ALJ's decision relied on a vocational expert’s job numbers and found jobs for Plaintiff existed in significant numbers nationally.
The district court reviewed whether the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether legal errors were present.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RFC determination (mental/physical limits)	ALJ failed to adequately incorporate functional limitations into RFC.	ALJ’s RFC supported by evidence; court should defer.	No error; substantial evidence supports ALJ RFC findings.
Step five: VE job numbers/methodology	VE’s method and numbers were not reliable or substantiated; numbers wildly inflated.	VE’s testimony is inherently reliable; plaintiff’s data doesn’t replicate VE’s method.	ALJ erred by not reconciling significant probative discrepancies in job numbers; remand required.
Reliance on document preparer job	Job reasoning requirements exceed plaintiff’s limitations (“simple instructions”/tasks).	Any error in including this job is harmless.	Commissioner’s non-specific argument on harmlessness is not preserved.
Reconciliation of conflicting evidence	Presented probative, statistically-supported alternative job counts using SkillTRAN/Job Browser Pro	Plaintiff failed to show VE’s method; no duty to weigh new evidence.	Plaintiff’s evidence was probative; ALJ must address material conflicts in job estimates on remand.

Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (discusses review of ALJ’s findings and standard for harmful error)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (elaborates harmless error standard in Social Security disability cases)
Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989) (defines substantial evidence as more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance)
Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (ALJ must resolve conflicts in medical evidence)
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (appellate review should not reweigh evidence; deference to ALJ on rational interpretations)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (substantial evidence can include vocational expert testimony irrespective of underlying data)
Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (VE testimony is reliable but can be rebutted by significant probative evidence)
White v. Kijakazi, 44 F.4th 828 (9th Cir. 2022) (when job number discrepancies are too stark, ALJ must address them)
Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (Job Browser Pro evidence is probative when relying on same DOT codes as VE)