Leah Zapata v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Leah Zapata appeals from the district court’s order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Zapata’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits.

We review de novo a district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). We reverse the Commissioner’s decision if it is based on legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. Id. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

We affirm the district court’s order. The facts of this ease are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

The Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not based on legal error. No medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with Zapata’s residual functioning capacity as determined at her disability hearing. We cannot second guess an ALJ’s credibility determination that is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir.1999)). Substantial evidence…