Bell-Shier
Bell-Shier v. Astrue
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Raedeanne A. Bell-Shier appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.
On appeal, the district court’s decision is reviewed de novo. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 , 1214 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005). The Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed if it is based upon correct legal standards and supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.1997)).
As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except to explain our disposition.
The Social Security regulations establish a five-step inquiry to decide whether a claimant is “disabled” for purposes…