## Facts

- Jennie P. Beltran applied for SSDI and SSI, alleging disability beginning June 30, 2000.
- Beltran had multiple impairments, including degenerative joint disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, heel spurs, lumbar degenerative disc disease, post-surgical leg injury, depression, and alcohol abuse.
- After administrative denials and a remand from an earlier adverse decision, an ALJ held a second hearing in December 2007.
- The ALJ found Beltran could not perform her past relevant work, shifting the burden at step five to the Commissioner to show other work existed in significant numbers.
- A vocational expert testified that, disregarding ongoing alcohol abuse, Beltran could work as a surveillance system monitor before January 9, 2006.
- The vocational expert identified 135 such jobs regionally and 1,680 nationally.
- Relying on that testimony, the ALJ found Beltran not disabled before January 9, 2006, but found her disabled as of January 9, 2006 based on deterioration and an age-category change.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, affirming the denial of benefits for the period before January 9, 2006.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s step-five finding that surveillance system monitor work existed in “significant numbers” in the national economy given the vocational expert’s job-number testimony and Beltran’s limitations.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the Commissioner did not meet the step-five burden because the identified surveillance system monitor job numbers (135 regional; 1,680 national) did not constitute “significant numbers” on this record.
- The court remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden to prove the claimant can perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy (either in the claimant’s region or in several regions).
- The “significant numbers” requirement must be supported by substantial evidence.
- In assessing significance, courts consider context, including the claimant’s functional limitations and whether the vocational evidence identifies only a small number of jobs in a single, uncommon occupation.
- A small number of jobs in a rare, narrowly defined occupation may be insufficient to satisfy the Commissioner’s step-five burden.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit set aside the step-five nondisability finding because the vocational evidence identified only one rare occupation with low regional and national job counts, which—considering the claimant’s limitations—did not amount to substantial evidence of work existing in significant numbers.


Beltran v. Astrue, 700 F.3d 386 (9th Cir. 2012)