Le

MEMORANDUM ***

Vinh Le appeals from the district court’s order upholding the Administrative Law *554 Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of social security disability benefits. We affirm.

Le waived his argument that the ALJ erred in not recontacting his doctor or obtaining more medical records because he failed to raise it to the Appeals Council or the district court. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2006). Even had he not waived this argument, it has no merit, because “[a]n ALJ’s duty to develop the record further is triggered only when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence.” Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir.2001). Here, the reports from Dr. Resnikoff and Dr. Sidrick regarding the improvement in Le’s physical condition were neither ambiguous nor inadequate.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Le was not permanently disabled by a combination of orthopedic and pulmonary diseases. First, Dr. Resnikoff stated that Le’s pulmonary tests were largely normal. No doctor diagnosed Le with tuberculosis, and the record shows that Le continuously improved over the course of…