Davis

MEMORANDUM **

George Davis (“Davis”) appeals the judgment of the district court upholding the denial by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) of Davis’ application for disability insurance benefits under both the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434 and 1381-1383f. Davis contends that Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was not based on a proper application of legal standards.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and in doing so we uphold Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error (Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.1999)). Because substantial evidence does support the conclusion that Davis was not disabled and because the decision by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was indeed free of legal error, we affirm.

Contrary to Davis’ contention, Social Security Ruling 83-12 does not compel the conclusion that he is disabled because of the erosion of his occupational base. All that was required of the ALJ was that he consult with a vocational…