Bodick

MEMORANDUM *

Karen Bodick appeals the district court’s order affirming the determination by the Commissioner of Social Security that Bodick was not disabled and not entitled to Social Security benefits. Bodick raises two claims of error. First, she argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to account for limitations on reaching placed upon her by one of her doctors, and that this error necessitates a remand to determine whether jobs exist that do not require reaching and for which Bodick is qualified. Bodick also contends that the ALJ failed to fully develop the record by not attempting to determine whether Bodick’s pain could be explained by a somato *430 form disorder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we AFFIRM.

DISCUSSION

Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case we recite them only as necessary to explain our decision. We review de novo a district court’s decision to uphold an ALJ’s order denying social security disability benefits. See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2000). Like the district court, we are required to give deference to the Commissioner’s decision, and must affirm if it applies the correct legal…