Finnsson

MEMORANDUM *

Jamie Finnsson, on behalf of her son Daniel, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security. Because we agree with the district court that substantial evidence supported the findings of the Commissioner to deny Finnsson benefits, we affirm.

A district court’s decision to uphold the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits is reviewed de novo. Merrill v. Apfel, 224 F.3d 1083, 1084 (9th Cir.2000). A denial of benefits may be set aside only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error. Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.1999). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Fla ten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Seros., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1995).

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits are available to children under the age of eighteen who have a “medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations, and which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for…