Widmark

MEMORANDUM **

Sterling Widmark appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits.

We review de novo a district court’s order affirming the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to deny benefits. Batson v. Commissioner, 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). We may set aside a denial of benefits only if it is based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183 (9th Cir.1990).

The ALJ found that Widmark, though severely impaired, had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) for the full range of light work. Widmark argues that, in reaching this decision, the ALJ improperly rejected his own testimony regarding the severity of his pain, two lay witness statements regarding the same, and various medical opinions.

The ALJ’s analysis of specific inconsistencies among Widmark’s statements, his actions, and the medical evidence provided clear and convincing reasons for a finding…