KLAASEN v. SAUL (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Vicki Klaasen appeals the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security 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.

The ALJ did not err at step five by failing to determine whether Klaasen would require little, if any, vocational adjustment to perform the job of material lister. The ALJ's questions to the vocational expert made it clear that the ALJ was inquiring about transferable skills that would require little, if any vocational adjustment to the positions identified. The ALJ applied the proper standard in accordance with Klaasen's advanced age category, asked the VE whether Klaasen possessed transferable skills that would allow “direct entry” into work within Klaasen's RFC, and made specific findings in his written decision when considering “whether a successful adjustment to other work can be made.” See Bray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2009). The ALJ specifically found that Klaasen had the transferable skills of “supervising, reviewing blueprints, scheduling, and familiarity with parts and materials,” and that an individual of Klaasen's age, education, past relevant work, and RFC could, with these skills, perform the job of material lister. This was a clear finding that no vocational adjustment was necessary for Klaasen to perform work the VE had identified.

AFFIRMED.