Cheryl Robertson v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Cheryl L. Robertson (“Robertson”) appeals the district court’s decision affirming an administrative law judge’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Robertson contends that the administrative law judge erred in determining that Robertson could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy when the effects of her substance abuse disorders were excluded. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court’s decision.

“A decision to deny benefits will only be disturbed if it is not supported by ‘substantial evidence or it is based on legal error.’ ” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1989)). “Substantial evidence is defined as ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.’ ” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999) (citation omitted).

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Robertson suffered from impairments but they did not fit within a listing that is presumptively…