Morton

MEMORANDUM ***

Tracy Morton (Morton) appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Morton’s application for *719 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.

We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to deny social security benefits. Frost v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 359, 366 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm the district court if the ALJ’s decision is based upon the application of correct legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence. Id.

Morton contends that the ALJ committed reversible legal error in failing to give specific germane reasons for discounting Morton’s lay witnesses. We disagree.

The ALJ gave little weight to the lay testimony of Morton’s neighbor, Ms. Baker. The ALJ erred by stating that Ms. Baker had known Morton for “six months.” Although Ms. Baker’s letter stated that Ms. Baker had known Morton for six months, at the time of the hearing, Ms. Baker testified that she had known Morton for 18…