Lara

MEMORANDUM ***

Daniel R. Lara appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that he was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and thus not entitled to disability benefits. We affirm.

I

There was substantial evidence to justify the administrate law judge’s (ALJ) failure to present two moderate limitations found by one reviewing physician to the vocational expert (VE), including the report of another doctor finding no such limitations, inconsistent testimony offered by Lara at the hearing, and the lack of evidence of any significant steps taken to treat his alleged depression. It was not error for the ALJ to rely on one physician’s opinion rather than the other’s. See generally Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2008); Osenbrock *326 v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir.2001).

Likewise, Lara’s argument that the ALJ’s finding of a severe impairment at step two of the disability determination process necessarily requires inclusion of that impairment in the hypothetical question posed to the VE at step five fails. A step-two determination is not dispositive at step…