Murillo

*531 MEMORANDUM **

The Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Murillo can perform at least his past relevant sedentary work as an electronics assembler is supported by substantial evidence. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1995) (where there is affirmative evidence of malingering, subjective pain complaints may be rejected based on substantial evidence). While it is true that “[a] man who cannot walk, stand or sit for over one hour without pain does not have the capacity to do most jobs available in the national economy,” Delgado v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 570, 574 (9th Cir.1983), the ALJ determined that Murillo is not so physically limited.

The ALJ properly considered all of the medical factors that could reduce Murillo’s work capacity, including subjective pain evidence. Erickson v. Shalala, 9 F.3d 813, 817-18 (9th Cir.1993). It was within the ALJ’s discretion to use ordinary methods of credibility determination in deciding that Murillo’s subjective pain claims were not credible. Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597 , 604 n. 5 (9th Cir.1989). Here, Murillo’s treating physicians noted the possibility of malingering and secondary gain and released Murillo to…