Peter Lumb v. Michael Astrue
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Peter Lumb appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits.
We review de novo a district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). We reverse the Commissioner’s decision if it is based on legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence. Id. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm the district court’s order.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
The Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not based on legal error. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) properly followed the five-step sequential test of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 .
Lumb’s attempt to challenge the ALJ’s determination that his mental health impairment is not severe fails because he did not contest it in the district court. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2006).
Lumb’s impairment does not meet any listing contained in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, Appx. 1.