Michele Mattison v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Michele Mattison appeals pro se on behalf of her minor child, K.A., who alleged disability based on severe asthma. The Commissioner of Social Security denied K.A.’s application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s judgment upholding the denial of social security benefits. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 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 of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir.2009).

The ALJ found that K.A.’s condition did not meet the regulatory criteria for presumptively disabling asthma under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, Appx. 1 § 103.03 (“Listing 103.03”).

The ALJ then evaluated K.A.’s condition under the functional equivalence test of 20 C.F.R. § 416 .926a for determining whether a person under the age of 18 is disabled. This test requires an assessment of the claimant’s ability to function in six domains of…