WILSON v. BERRYHILL (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Helena K. Wilson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

Wilson did not waive her challenge to the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony. Wilson’s argument concerns the meaning of the word “incidental” in relation to Wilson’s limitations as outlined in the residual functional capacity (“RFC”).

On the merits, Wilson fails to establish a conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the limitation in her RFC to “incidental” interpersonal contact. Wilson relies upon a limited dictionary definition of “incidental” and then argues incompatibility with the agency’s regulations for “basic work activity” requirements. Wilson’s incompatibility argument fails because Wilson cites no support from the Act, case law, agency regulations, or any other agency guidance materials. In sum, Wilson has not demonstrated the ALJ committed legal error by relying upon the vocational expert’s testimony. See Diedrich v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 634, 638 (9th Cir. 2017).

AFFIRMED.