Css

MEMORANDUM

Ann Louise Aarestad, a 55-year-old former salesperson for an automotive tool manufacturer, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). The Commissioner denied Aarestad’s application for disabled widow’s insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we repeat them here only as necessary to explain our decision. We affirm.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order affirming an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of benefits. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008). This court must affirm the district court’s decision if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and substantial evidence supports the decision. Id. Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla,” or “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). The Commissioner’s findings “as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” 42…