Charles Lockridge, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel*, Commissioner of Socialsecurity, Defendant-appellee, 139 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Charles Lockridge appeals the district court's order affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for supplemental security income benefits under 42 U .S.C. §§ 1381-1383c. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court's judgment upholding an administrative law judge's ("ALJ") denial of benefits. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). We must affirm the ALJ's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and is based upon the correct legal standards. See id.

We agree with the district court that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's specific reasons for discrediting Lockridge's pain testimony. See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1283-84.

The ALJ properly discounted the testimony of Lockridge's wife that conflicted with available medical evidence. See Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). Although the ALJ did not make specific findings to reject the remaining lay testimony of Lockridge's wife, see Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that ALJ must give reasons "germane to each witness" to reject lay testimony), any error was harmless because substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Lockridge was capable of performing light work. See Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1993).

We agree with the district court that the ALJ's hypothetical question to the vocational expert included all limitations and impairments supported by substantial evidence. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 756-57 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the district court's order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.