MEMORANDUM ***

Susan McDermott (“McDermott”) appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income following a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). 1 Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination, we affirm.

Absent any evidence of malingering, the ALJ was required to provide clear and convincing reasons for discounting McDer-mott’s testimony about the extent of her impairments. Carmickle v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 583 F.3d 1155, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2008). McDermott testified as to the nature and severity of her physical limitations, but the ALJ found McDermott’s statements to be inconsistent with the evidence offered by physicians that she had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work and the record of her various daily activities, which included performing various chores, shopping and gardening. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2008). We find the ALJ’s reasons for discounting McDermott’s testimony to be clear, convincing, and supported by substantial evidence.

McDermott also contends that the ALJ failed to address all of the functional limitations identified in the medical reports of the examining and non-examining physicians. See Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p; see also Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1164. We conclude that the ALJ’s RFC determination is consistent with the record evidence, explains the inconsistencies in the evidence between the physicians’ reports and McDermott’s subjective symptom testimony, and adequately sets forth the basis for its determination. See SSR 96-8p; see also Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).

Finally, because the ALJ did not err in his RFC determination, the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert at step five was not incomplete. The ALJ properly identified that McDermott had the transferable skills of “record keeping, and public interaction with respect to animals” required to work as an animal shelter clerk based on the evidence and the vocational expert’s testimony. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1223-26, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.