Short-Dille
Short-Dille v. Astrue
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Earlene Short-Dille appeals pro se the district court’s decision affirming the deni *389 al of her application for supplemental security income payments. Because substantial evidence supports the determination that Short-Dille is not disabled for purposes of obtaining such benefits, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
Short-Dille is disabled only if she is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment ... for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” See Bray v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219 , 1222 n. 3 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A)). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the requisite five-step sequential review process to determine whether she met that standard. See id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 ). The ALJ concluded at step one that Short-Dille’s attempts at part-time work did not amount to substantial gainful activity so as to disqualify her for benefits on that ground. At step two, the ALJ found that Short-Dille’s impairments are severe, but for purposes of step three, her impairments do not automatically direct a finding of disability. At step…