O'Grady

MEMORANDUM ***

Mary O’Grady appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) in his decision to reduce O’Grady’s social security retirement insurance benefits under the Windfall Elimination Provision (“WEP”), 42 U.S.C. § 415 (a)(7)(A), and in his calculation of the reduction under that provision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s summary judgment de novo and we will affirm the Commissioner’s decision if the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm the decision of the Commissioner that the WEP mandates a reduction in O’Grady’s benefits, but we remand for a recalculation of the proper amount of that reduction.

In 1993, O’Grady began receiving an annuity from the Canadian government based on her employment with the Canadian Immigration and Medical Service. Under the plain terms of the WEP, O’Grady’s social security retirement insurance benefits are subject to a reduction. 42 U.S.C. § 415 (a)(7)(A). Substantial evidence…