Evelyn Morales v. Carolyn W. Colvin
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Evelyn Morales appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision finding Morales was not disabled and was ineligible for benefits. Morales contends the ALJ erred in: (1) failing to properly evaluate the medical evidence; (2) failing to properly evaluate her testimony; (3) failing to properly evaluate the statement of her husband, John Morales; (4) failing to properly evaluate her residual functional capacity (RFC); and (5) basing his finding at step five of the sequential evaluation process on a hypothetical to the vocational expert that allegedly did not accurately reflect Morales’s limitations. We affirm.
“Our review is essentially the same as that undertaken by the district court.” Stone v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 530, 532 (9th Cir.1985). In both cases, the court determines whether the ALJ’s decision can be supported by “substantial evidence.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). “Substantial evidence” is “more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).