Weed v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, 6:10-cv-00656

Weed seeks judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final denial of his SSI claim under Title XVI; court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Weed, born 1962, claims disability since November 30, 2000 due to paraphilia, paranoid schizophrenia, and Asperger's syndrome; education allegedly a high school equivalency.
Initial denial and reconsideration occurred; an ALJ held a hearing in 2006 and ruled not disabled; court reversed in 2008 and remanded for further proceedings.
A second ALJ hearing occurred in March 2010, with an April 2010 finding of not disabled; Weed again appeals.
ALJ found Weed’s schizoid personality disorder, history of paranoid schizophrenia, and paraphilia to be severe at step two, but not meeting a listed impairment; RFC limited him to no public contact and limited coworker/supervisor interaction, best work alone.
At step four Weed had no past relevant work; at step five the ALJ found positions as cleaner/housekeeper, sweeper/cleaner, and janitor; therefore Weed was not disabled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether VE testimony conflicted with the DOT	Weed argues ALJ failed to limit to ‘work alone’ and DOT conflict invalidates reliance on VE.	Commissioner contends RFC and questions to VE properly reflected limitations; DOT deviation permitted with record support.	No reversible error; VE testimony supported by record, DOT deviation permissible with evidence.

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (burden shift at step five; vocation evidence considerations)
Batson v. Commissioner, SSA, 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard and review scope)
Bray v. Commissioner of SSA, 554 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejects reliance on non-asserted reasoning; framework for review)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (weighing evidence; substantial evidence standard)
Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (proper assessment of evidence and ALJ's role)
Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) (rebutting error standards and review limits)
Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1995) (VE testimony and DOT deviation framework)
Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1986) (matching VOC requirements to claimant abilities)
Chenery Corp. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 332 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court 1947) (standard for judicial reasoning and statutory construction)
Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (reliance on VE testimony when DOT conflicts)