H'Oar

MEMORANDUM ***

The Social Security Administration employs a five-step inquiry to determine disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 , 416.920. H’Oar alleges that the ALJ erred at step four by concluding that H’Oar could perform his past job as a laundry worker and erred at step five by concluding that H’Oar could work as a housekeeper or janitor.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination. The ALJ made specific findings that explained his rationale for why he disbelieved some of H’Oar’s subjective testimony. See Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.Sd 1157, 1165 (9th Cir.2001). The record indicates enough material inconsistencies in H’Oar’s own statements to support a finding that his testimony was not wholly credible. See Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789 , 792 (9th Cir.1997). Similarly, the record supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Rawlins’s report. Dr. Rawlins used the term “unskilled work” in the generic sense, not in the technical sense found in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). Therefore, the ALJ’s findings supported the work restrictions included in the hypothetical. See Osenbrock, 240 F.3d at 1164-65.

At step four, substantial evidence supports the…