Deana Denham v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Deana Denham appeals the denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir.2012). “We will ‘set aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.’” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir.2009)). In determining whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we must consider new evidence submitted for the first time to the Appeals Council so long as the evidence relates to the period on or before the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision. Brewes, 682 F.3d at 1159-60, 1162 .

Absent any evidence of malingering, the ALJ was required to provide clear and convincing reasons for discounting Denham’s testimony about the extent of her impairments. Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1160-61…