Astrue

MEMORANDUM *

Leticia De Guzman appeals the district court’s decision upholding the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance and supplemental social security income benefits. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we recount them here only as necessary.

De Guzman contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in making an adverse credibility determination and rejecting the opinions of three of her doctors. We review the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo to determine whether such denial “was supported by substantial evidence and a correct application of the law.” Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 182 (9th Cir.1995). “Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005).

I

De Guzman challenges the ALJ’s conclusion that she was not entirely credible because of inconsistencies between her reported activities and her alleged limitations, as well as a lack of objective medical evidence to corroborate her symptoms.

A

De Guzman…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision. The ALJ based his decision to deny petitioner De Guzman’s disability benefits on making an adverse credibility determination and rejecting a treating source’s medical opinion. The ALJ’s reasoning, however, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. I would reverse and remand for calculation of disability benefits.

1. An ALJ may look to a claimant’s daily activities as a factor in evaluating her credibility. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir.1996). At the same, “[t]he Social Security Act does not require that claimants be utterly incapacitated to be eligible for benefits.” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1989). Furthermore, that “[sjymptoms ... may worsen or improve with time, ... may explain why the individual does not always allege the same intensity, persistence, or functional effects of his or her symptoms.” Soc. Sec. Rui. 96-7p. So the ALJ must examine the record to determine whether there are explanations for variations in the claimant’s descriptions of his or her symptoms. Id.

Here, the ALJ deemed De Guzman not credible because he found that she had contradicted herself in…