Denise Thomas v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Denise Thomas (“Thomas”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her claim of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The district court upheld the finding of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that Thomas was not eligible for benefits because she had engaged in substantial gainful activity during the alleged period of disability. We affirm.

This court reviews a district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo. Schneider v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2000). We will set aside a denial of benefits only if “it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error.” Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.1990)).

There is a five-step analysis for determining whether a claimant is eligible for disability benefits. See Corrao v. Shalala, 20 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir.1994); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 . A claimant will be disqualified at step one if he or she is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” See Corrao,…