Lurf

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Cherilynn M. Lurf appeals from a denial of disability and supplemental security income benefits. We review de novo her denial of benefits, see Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir.1999) (stating the standard of review), and affirm.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) fully and fairly developed the record. He questioned Plaintiff about her depression and back pain and their effects on her daily life, in addition to asking about her education, past work history, and medication use. The ALJ also had a medical expert testify to assess Plaintiffs medical history and a vocational expert testify regarding jobs Plaintiff could perform. Plaintiffs past medical history and the testimony elicited at trial were sufficient to present a full and clear picture of her impairments. Consequently, the ALJ did not need to develop the record further. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that an ALJ’s duty to develop the record is triggered by ambiguous or inadequate evidence in the record).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Plaintiffs impairments did not rise to the level of a disability. Dr.…