Gigi TOKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Decided: March 06, 2020
Before: IKUTA, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Amy Gilbrough, Attorney, Dougals, Drachler & McKee, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Kerry Keefe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Sarah Leigh Martin, Assistant Regional Counsel, SSA - Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee
Gigi Tokin appeals the determination of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”)—which was affirmed by a federal district court–—that she is not entitled to social security benefits because she is not disabled. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court.
Ms. Tokin’s sole challenge on appeal is that the ALJ should have addressed two vocational rehabilitation assessments discussing, among other things, Ms. Tokin’s inability to concentrate and follow instructions while working. But any error by the ALJ in not addressing these assessments was harmless. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012). Indeed, the ALJ gave little weight to a very similar vocational rehabilitation assessment in part because it was inconsistent with the medical evidence and Ms. Tokin’s daily activities. And those same reasons—which are supported by substantial evidence and are uncontested on appeal—apply equally to the two assessments the ALJ did not consider. This means that any error by the ALJ in not addressing the assessments was harmless—that is, “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination” and unable to “alter[ ] the outcome of the case.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.