Moses Champagne v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Moses Lloyd Champagne appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Champagne contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in rejecting his treating physicians’ objective findings and opinions, and in finding his subjective complaints not fully credible. He also contends that the ALJ erred in failing to find that a vocational expert’s testimony established that Champagne’s limitations precluded him from performing substantial gainful activity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s order de novo. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2012). We may set aside the denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Id.

The ALJ reasonably weighed the medical evidence of Champagne’s physical limitations and found him capable of a reduced range of sedentary work despite his back and ankle impairments. The ALJ reviewed the medical evidence in the record, including the treatment notes of Champagne’s providers…