Palermo

MEMORANDUM ***

Diane F. Palermo appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s order, and must uphold the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. See Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm.

The ALJ provided specific and cogent reasons for rejecting Palmero’s subjective complaints of pain and incapacity based on contradictions in her testimony, her daily activities, and the medical evidence. See id. at 1464 .

Although the ALJ found illegible some progress notes written by treating physician Dr. Odubella, the record before the ALJ, including Dr. Odubella’s findings, was neither ambiguous nor inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that the duty to develop the record is only triggered when the ALJ finds the record inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of…