Dyondra D. Glaspy v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DYONDRA D. GLASPY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-35960
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00013-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 5, 2019 **
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges
Dyondra Glaspy appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social
Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s order de novo and the
FILED
JUN 07 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

agency’s decision for substantial evidence or legal error. Garrison v. Colvin, 759
F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The ALJ properly assessed physical residual functional capacity by
determining how long Glaspy could perform physical functions, including sitting,
in an eight hour day. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545. The regulations do not require
that the ALJ incorporate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations
into the assessment. Id. Nor do the regulations require that the ALJ consider
reasonable accommodation to determine whether work exists in the national
economy at step five of the sequential evaluation. Id. § 404.1566. The ALJ
properly applied the law by holding that ADA accommodation was not relevant to
determine whether Glaspy could perform other work at step five of the sequential
evaluation. Id.; Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 803 (1999)
(contrasting the ADA with Social Security disability and explaining that the
agency does not consider ADA reasonable accommodation when it determines
disability); Johnson v. Oregon, 141 F.3d 1361, 1366 (9th Cir. 1988) (same); SSR
11-2P § D (1)(e), 2011 WL 4055665 (Sept. 12, 2011).1
AFFIRMED.
1Because this legal issue is dispositive, we decline to consider the alternative
arguments made by Glaspy.
2

-- 2 of 2 --