Peter Bruce Seltser v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER BRUCE SELTSER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-55669
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02590-LAB-
WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 10, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: MURPHY,** PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Peter Seltser appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Social
Security Commissioner’s determination that he was not disabled and therefore not
FILED
MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Michael R. Murphy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

entitled to disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Seltser argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding
that his skills as a public insurance adjuster were transferable to a claims clerk role
with “very little, if any, vocational adjustment required in terms of tools, work
processes, work settings, or the industry.” Renner v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 1421, 1423
(9th Cir. 1986). We review the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence. Molina v.
Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). In reaching his decision, the ALJ
relied upon a vocational expert’s testimony that Seltser’s insurance-related skills
were transferable, that there was very little vocational adjustment required as to
work processes, work settings, and industry, and that the basic computer tasks of
the position were learnable within 30 days. Given this testimony, substantial
evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Seltser could perform the job of a claims
clerk with very little vocational adjustment.
We similarly reject Seltser’s argument that the vocational expert’s testimony
improperly conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). Seltser
fails to identify any specific inconsistency. The expert accurately discussed the
DOT entries for each position, and her testimony was consistent with those entries.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Any failure by the ALJ to inquire about consistency with the DOT was therefore
harmless. Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1154 n.19 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --