Adriana Suero v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Adriana Suero appeals from the district court’s judgment, which affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Suero was disabled as of November 28,1999. We affirm.

The ALJ found that Suero’s impairments did not meet or equal any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to Sub-part P of Regulations No. 4. Suero argues that her impairments meet Listings 1.02 and 1.04. Suero failed to meet her burden of showing that she meets each characteristic of the listed impairment by establishing “symptoms, signs and laboratory findings ‘at least equal in severity and duration’ to the characteristics of a relevant listed impairment, or, if a claimant’s impairment is not listed, then to the listed impairment ‘most like’ the claimant’s impairment.” See Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 188-84 (9th Cir.1990). Thus, there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that Suero’s impairments did not meet or equal any listed impairments.

We reject Suero’s argument that the record was not adequately developed. However, there is no evidence of an ambiguity or gap in the file that would trigger the ALJ’s duty to further develop the evidence. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453,…