Leah Zapata v. Michael Astrue , 357 F. App'x 939 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           DEC 15 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    LEAH F. ZAPATA,                                  No. 09-35199
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00654-CRD
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
    Social Security,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Carolyn R. Dimmick, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 11, 2009**
    Seattle Washington, California
    Before: BEEZER, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    Leah Zapata appeals from the district court’s order affirming the decision of
    the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Zapata’s
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income
    Benefits.
    We review de novo a district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s
    decision to deny benefits. Tackett v. Apfel, 
    180 F.3d 1094
    , 1097 (9th Cir. 1999).
    We reverse the Commissioner’s decision if it is based on legal error or is not
    supported by substantial evidence. 
    Id. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1291.
    We affirm the district court’s order. The facts of this case are known to the
    parties. We do not repeat them.
    The Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the
    record and is not based on legal error. No medical evidence in the record is
    inconsistent with Zapata’s residual functioning capacity as determined at her
    disability hearing. We cannot second guess an ALJ’s credibility determination that
    is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Thomas v. Barnhart, 
    278 F.3d 947
    , 958 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    169 F.3d 595
    , 600 (9th Cir. 1999)). Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s
    credibility determination.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-35199

Citation Numbers: 357 F. App'x 939

Filed Date: 12/15/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023