Opinion ID: 166408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: c redibility

Text: Finally, Tom argues that the ALJ erred in finding that Tom’s “allegations regarding her limitations are not totally credible,” Aplt. App. at 30. Credibility determinations are peculiarly within the province of the fact-finder and will not be disturbed when closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence. Hackett v. Barnhart , 395 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance,” Sorenson v. Bowen , 888 F.2d 706, 710 (10th Cir. 1989), and is established by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Soliz v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks omitted) . We -5- conclude that the ALJ’s credibility determination is legally sound and supported by substantial evidence. See Kepler v. Chater , 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995) (discussing the process for determining whether subjective complaints are credible). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr.