Case Name: Gilda SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 234 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 05-56147
Parties: Gilda SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
Gilda SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-56147.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 17, 2007.
Filed June 14, 2007.
Law Offices of Young C. Cho, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jean M. Turk, Esq., Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: FISHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.
Michael J. Astrue is substituted for his predecessor Jo Anne Barnhart as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The Honorable Jeremy Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Gilda Sanchez appeals the district court's judgment affirming Appellee's denial of her application for social security disability benefits. Appellant argues that the presiding Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") made two errors: determining that she was less than fully credible in her description of her symptoms; and discounting the testimony of her two treating physicians whose diagnoses depended in large part upon her self-reporting.
Like the district court, we conclude that the ALJ stated clear and convincing reasons for discrediting Appellant's testimony. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1995). We also conclude after a thorough review of the record that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons—supported by substantial evidence— for discounting the testimony of Appellant's treating physicians. See id. at 831. Accordingly, the appeal is without merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.