Barbara Moller v. Carolyn W. Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Barbara Jo Moller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Child’s Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Moller was not disabled under the Act prior to age 22. See 42 U.S.C. § 402 (d); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110 . The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly considered all of the relevant evidence, including Moller’s testimony, the testimony of Moller’s treating physician, and Moller’s work activities and medical history from the relevant time period. Moreover, the ALJ’s residual functional capacity findings were supported by substantial evidence and did not contradict the testimony of the treating physician. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005) (“A decision to deny benefits will only be disturbed if it is not supported by ‘substantial evidence or it is based on legal error.’ ” (citation omitted)).

The ALJ provided “specific, clear, and convincing reasons” for rejecting…