Virginia Ann CALDWELL-GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee, 691 F. App'x 353

MEMORANDUM Virginia Caldwell-Grant appeals from the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in finding, at step five of the sequential evaluation process, that Caldwell-Grant had transferable work skills.

The parties agree that at the time of the ALJ’s decision, Caldwell-Grant was limited to light work and was of advanced age with a high school education, and therefore would be considered not disabled under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, or “grids,” if she had transferable skills. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, 202-06 & 202.07. The vocational expert’s testimony satisfied the Commissioner’s burden of establishing specific work skills — stock checking, merchandise cataloging, and inventory marking — that Caldwell-Grant had acquired from her past semi-skilled work as a stock clerk. See Rounds v.

Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir. 2015); Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2009). These transferable skills enable Caldwell-Grant to perform jobs as an order filler, layaway clerk, and lost-and-found clerk. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Caldwell-Grant’s skills were transferable to a significant range of semi-skilled work that she could perform, given her age, education, work experiénce, and residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt.

P, App. 2, 202.00(c) (providing that work skills must be readily transferable to a significant range of jobs); cf. Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that transferability of skills to only one occupation was insufficient). We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. This Disposition Is Not Appropriate for Publication and Is Not Precedent Except as Provided By Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.