Daryl Jones v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Because the facts and circumstances of this case are known to the parties, we refer to them only as necessary to explain our decision.

Jones asserts that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) fatally erred by failing to determine at step 2 of the familiar sequential evaluation analysis whether Jones (1) had a severe mental impairment, and (2) if so, whether that impairment met or equaled any of the listed impairments. The record conclusively refutes this claim. The ALJ did adequately perform the requisite step 2 analysis, saying he would discuss his step 2 findings “in more detail at findings number 3, 4, and 5.” The district court was correct when it eonclud- ed that “[although the ALJ did not adequately document his application of the special technique in his step two analysis, he included the requisite findings and conclusions in his step three analysis.” Thus, no substantive analytical error occurred, and Keyser v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 648 F.3d 721 (9th Cir.2011) is inapposite.

We also conclude that the ALJ did not err in considering “the circumstances under which [Dr. Mahoney’s] report was obtained and its consistency with other reports, records, or…