Fox

MEMORANDUM **

Dale Fox appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s affirmance of the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Fox first contends that the Commissioner’s denial of benefits was unsupported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to explain the discrepancy between the vocational expert’s testimony that Fox, who cannot use his dominant arm repetitively, could perform work as a cashier or housekeeper, and the Dictionary of Occupational Title’s (“DOT”) definition of these jobs as involving frequent reaching and handling. See Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789 , 791, 793-94 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that substantial evidence did not support Commissioner’s denial where neither the ALJ nor the vocational expert explained the contradiction between the expert’s testimony and the DOT). We disagree. The expert specifically eroded the number of available cashier and housekeeper jobs to exclude those requiring repetitive use of a dominant arm. See Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1435 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that ALJ may rely on expert…