Cssa

MEMORANDUM

Jackie D. Rakes appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that Rakes was not entitled to disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

The Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision to disregard lay witness statements and testimony offered in support of Rakes’s claim was supported by substantial evidence and is therefore proper. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.Bd 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.2001). The ALJ rejected the written statements of three witnesses because they “appear to have been written by the same person” and were of little or no value because they are “very short, conclusive statements that do not clearly address or explain the conditions expressed.” The ALJ determined that the hearing testimony of Rakes’s housemate and former coworker was of “questionable evidentiary value” because the housemate had not directly observed Rakes at work, his testimony did not establish a level of impairment, and Rakes had demonstrated greater functioning by performing 80 hours of…