Janine Connors v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Janine Connors appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Administra tive Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of social security disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, we affirm. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012).

1. The ALJ’s step-three finding that Connors did not meet or equal Listing 14.09 for rheumatoid arthritis is procedurally and substantively sound. The ALJ did not include a discussion of the relevant rheumatoid arthritis evidence in the section of his opinion dedicated to the listing analysis, but he did include a discussion of the relevant evidence later in his opinion. Therefore, his analysis was procedurally proper. See Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 513 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the ALJ did not err by discussing relevant evidence in the Statement of the Case section, rather than in the Findings section of the opinion).

In addition, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Connors’s rheumatoid arthritis did not meet or equal Listing 14.09. Connors has not met her burden to establish an “inability to ambulate effectively” as required by 20 C.F.R.…