McLavey

MEMORANDUM **

Tina M. McLavey appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) denial of Social Security benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s decision de novo. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005). We will affirm the ALJ’s decision if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and substantial evidence supports the decision. Id.

The ALJ discounted the lay witness testimony based on his determination that the witnesses had been intentionally misled by McLavey and that their testimony was inconsistent with the medical record. The ALJ did not err in making this determination, because his reasons were supported by substantial evidence in the record and were germane to each of the lay witnesses. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 512 (9th Cir.2001); Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir.1996).

*594 Because the ALJ considered the alleged limitations imposed by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and so-matization disorder…