NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 9 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENISE WHITE, No. 17-55561 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01198-VAP-KES v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting MEMORANDUM* Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2019** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Denise White appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of White’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Reviewing de novo, we may set aside a denial of benefits

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) applied the wrong legal standard. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The ALJ’s findings concerning White’s back injury are supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 1111 (if the record contains evidence “susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the record”); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 948, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The opinions of non-treating or non- examining physicians may also serve as substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with independent clinical findings or other evidence in the record.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-55561