Ethelmarie Hubbard v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Ethelmarie Hubbard appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial by the Social Security Commissioner (“Commissioner”) of Hubbard’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 ^03, 1381-1383f. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s order upholding the denial of benefits. Howard ex rel Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2003). We must uphold the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and if the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Id.

Hubbard contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred at Step 2 of the sequential evaluation process in finding that her knee injury, obesity, and hip, back, and shoulder pain were not severe impairments. Because Hubbard prevailed at Step 2 and because the ALJ considered these alleged impairments later in the sequential analysis, we conclude that any error in omitting the alleged impairments at Step 2 was harmless. See Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir.2007); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d…