Gigi Tokin v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security

19-35196United States Court Of Appeals For The 9th CircuitMar 6, 2020

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GIGI TOKIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-35196

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01796-RSM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 4, 2020
**

Seattle, Washington

Before: IKUTA, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

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

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

MAR 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
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).
AFFIRMED.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.