Lenhart

MEMORANDUM ***

David Lenhart appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that he was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and thus not entitled to disability insurance. 1 We affirm.

This appeal turns in large part on an adverse credibility finding. “In weighing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ may consider his reputation for truthfulness, inconsistencies either in his testimony or between his testimony and his conduct, his daily activities, his work record, and testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms of which he complains.” Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789 , 792 (9th Cir.1997) (citations omitted). Here, the Administrative Law Judge *789 (ALJ) noted that Lenhart’s claims were inconsistent with the physical appearance notations of Drs. Gamber, Cox, McLaughlin, and Seaman; that Lenhart’s carpal tunnel surgery was generally successful in relieving his symptoms; and that his treating physician had cleared him for work. It was not unreasonable to find that Lenhart exaggerated his symptoms and inability to work in light…