Cisco

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Cisco appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of Cisco’s application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Cisco argues that the evidence in the record does not support the finding that he did not have a severe impairment on or before June 30, 2001, his date last insured. We disagree. The Commissioner’s final decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir.2002). When the evidence can be rationally interpreted in more than one way, “it is the [Administrative Law Judge’s] conclusion that must be upheld.” Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) viewed the entire record and concluded that Cisco did not suffer from a severe impairment as of June 30, 2001. An evaluation of the medical evidence shows that Cisco had “the physical and mental ability ... necessary to perform [basic work] activities.”…