Fleming v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Anna Fleming appeals the district court’s order affirming the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of benefits. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008). We may reverse the Commissioner’s decision only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir.2006). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Fleming argues that the ALJ erred by improperly rejecting her testimony without providing specific reasons for doing so. “In assessing the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or the intensity of symptoms, the ALJ engages in a two-step analysis.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir.2012). First, the ALJ must determine if there is medical evidence of an impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Id. If the claimant is able to provide this evidence, and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ must then give specific, clear and convincing reasons…