UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ KEELEY HAMILTON, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 23-1466 │ v. │ │ COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, │ Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:22-cv-10066—Mark A. Goldsmith, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: April 17, 2024

Before: McKEAGUE, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Paul Renzo, Dearborn, Michigan, for Appellant. David I. Blower, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

PER CURIAM. An administrative law judge denied Keeley Hamilton’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income because, despite her physical impairments, she could still work in two occupations. On appeal, Hamilton relies on Ninth Circuit caselaw to seek a categorical rule that would treat her as disabled unless she could work in at least three occupations. We disagree with the Ninth Circuit’s rule. So we affirm the district court’s decision upholding the Social Security Administration’s denial of benefits to Hamilton. No. 23-1466 Hamilton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Page 2

I.

After graduating from high school, Hamilton eventually took a job with Kohl’s. She worked many years as a retail cashier or on the floor for this department store. On December 28, 2015, however, Hamilton’s physical ailments forced her to quit her job when she was 56 years old.

In March 2017, Hamilton sought disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income from the Social Security Administration (which we will call the “Administration” for short). In her applications, Hamilton asserted that she suffered from several physical impairments: degenerative disc disease, left cubital tunnel syndrome, and obesity. Hamilton also asserted that she had become disabled on the date of her last day of work.

Hamilton’s applications progressed to an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) within the Administration. Hamilton and a vocational expert testified at her hearing.

The ALJ denied Hamilton’s applications using the Administration’s five-step evaluation sequence for determining whether an applicant qualifies as “disabled” under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). At the first two steps, the ALJ found that Hamilton had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset of her disability and that she had severe impairments that limited her ability to work. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)– (ii). At the third step, the ALJ found that she did not automatically qualify as disabled because her impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). At the fourth step, the ALJ found that Hamilton had the “residual functional capacity” to perform light work with some restrictions that do not matter in this appeal. The ALJ added tha