Maglieri

MEMORANDUM **

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we will not recount them here.

*180 ALJ Franks concluded that appellant (“Maglieri”) was not disabled under the Social Security Act and denied Maglieri disability insurance benefits because he failed to rebut the presumption that his earnings constituted “substantial, gainful activity.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574 (b)(2)®. The district court agreed. Maglieri appeals on two grounds: (1) whether the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence; and (2) whether the ALJ made adequate credibility findings regarding Maglieri’s testimony and evidence offered by Maglieri’s father. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

A district court’s affirmance of an ALJ’s decision is reviewed de novo. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). A reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner’s decision unless the ALJ’s findings are unsupported by substantial evidence or based on legal error. Id.

ALJ Franks’ decision stated that Maglieri’s explanation for his earned income — that he did not work and was only paid to maintain coverage under the group insurance carried by his father’s…