Laura Zens v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Commissioner

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURA ZENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Commissioner,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-16215
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00723-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2013 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Laura Zens appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Social Security disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of
the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 16 2013
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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

We review de novo the district court’s decision upholding the denial of benefits.
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We must affirm the denial of
benefits unless it is based on legal error or the findings of fact are not supported by
substantial evidence. Id.
Zens waived the argument that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to
fully and fairly develop the record because she failed to raise this argument before the
district court. See Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir.
2006).
The ALJ did not err by failing sua sponte to offer Zens a video-conference hearing
because the record does not show that Zens demonstrated diminished cognitive abilities at
the in-person hearing. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.936(c)-(f). Finally, Zens waived the argument
that the Appeals Council erred in its evaluation of the new evidence she submitted after
the ALJ issued his decision because she failed to raise the argument in her opening brief.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --