Blum

Blum v. Barnhart

Good Law
203 F. App'x 894
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 3, 2006No. 05-35304California676 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Larry R. Blum (“Blum”) appeals the district court’s order 1 affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision to deny him Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s order affirming an ALJ’s decision to deny social security benefits. Frost v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 359, 366 (9th Cir.2002). We must affirm the decision to deny benefits unless the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence or are based on legal error. Id. (citing Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999)).

The district court properly concluded that the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence. It correctly concluded that the ALJ did not err in determining at Step 3 of the 5-Step analysis for ascertaining disability, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (d), that Blum’s impairments do not “meet[] or equal[] a listed impairment in Appendix 1.” Id. (referring to the listed impairments (“the Listings”) in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1). The ALJ properly “evaluated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.