Cunningham

MEMORANDUM **

Leanora Cunningham appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny her Supplemental Security Income disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

This court reviews de novo the district court’s order. See Flaten v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1995). However, “we may set aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error.” Id. (citing Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.1990)).

The district court properly concluded that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence. The district court also properly concluded that the ALJ did not err when he: (1) found Cunningham not credible; (2) credited the opinion of the Medical Expert over the opinions of Cunningham’s treating and examining physicians; (3) rejected the treating physician’s opinion on the ultimate issue of disability; and (4) established the limitations in the hypothetical posed to the…