Parks
Parks v. Astrue
Opinion
lead Opinion
*505 MEMORANDUM **
Christina M. Parks appeals a district court judgment, which affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision to deny her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we will discuss them only as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The Social Security regulations provide a five-step inquiry to determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined at step three that Parks had not established that her seizures met the severity and frequency requirements of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, §§ 11.02 and 11.03 (Listings 11.02 and 11.03). We have held that “[a] claimant’s impairment does not meet the epilepsy listing unless it ‘persists despite the fact that the individual is following prescribed anticonvulsive treatment.’ ” Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 513 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 11.00A).…