Tammy Phillippi v. Michael Astrue

Good Law
473 F. App'x 808
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 15, 201210-56856California514 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Tammy Philippi appeals pro se the judgment of the district court affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s judgment upholding the denial of social security benefits. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 538 F.3d 1035 , 1038 (9th Cir.2008). We must affirm the denial of benefits unless it is based on legal error or the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir.2009).

Philippi contends the administrative law judge improperly found her impairments not equivalent to listing 12.04 of the regulatory Listing of Impairments at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Supbpart P, Appendix 1. Philippi bears the burden of proving that her condition is equivalent to a listed impairment. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir.2005). The criteria for Listing 12.04 include diagnostic criteria establishing an affective disorder and severity criteria establishing marked limitation in mental function. The ALJ found Philippi did not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.