Pearson

MEMORANDUM

Patricia J. Pearson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) denial of Social Security benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of benefits cle novo. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008). We must affirm the ALJ’s decision if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and substantial evidence supports the decision. Id. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Id. “The evidence must be more than a mere scintilla but not necessarily a preponderance.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the ALJ’s conclusions. Id. Thus, even if the weight of the evidence is against the ALJ’s conclusion, so long as there substantial evidence to support the conclusion, we must affirm.

Here, the ALJ exercised her discretion to credit the reports of doctors who said Pearson is capable of performing her past work as a housekeeper (Drs. Dragovich and Goodman) over the…