Dagsland

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner, Susan Dagsland, is disabled. Nonetheless, she was denied disability benefits because the ALJ found drug use was a material factor in causing her disability. For the proceeding reasons, we AFFIRM.

Although there was testimony to the contrary, the ALJ did not commit error by accepting Dr. Nance’s conclusion that Petitioner would not meet the 12.04 (affective disorders) listing following one month of abatement. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.1995) (reconciling conflicts in medical testimony is within the province of the ALJ.) We similarly find no error in the ALJ’s proposed hypothetical. When propounding a hypothetical, the ALJ must ensure it is “accurate, detailed, and supported by the medical record.” See Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir.1999)). Petitioner’s limitation of frequent failure to complete tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies of concentra *505 tion, persistence, or pace were properly excluded from the hypothetical because it was based on the limitations that would remain if Petitioner was drug free for one month.

Finally, the ALJ did…