Lewis

MEMORANDUM ***

Lewis argues that the administrative law judge [ALJ] “committed six principal errors in reaching her flawed determination” that Lewis was not disabled. We review de novo the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s final denial of benefits. Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm the district court if the Commissioner’s decision was “supported by substantial evidence and based on the application of correct legal standards.” Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.1997). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance — it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion.” Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 749 (9th Cir.1995). “[I]f evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the decision of the ALJ must be upheld.” Id.

Lewis argues that the ALJ erred in failing to consider all of his impairments at Step 2 of her analysis. Since there is substantial evidence in the medical records that Lewis’s “status post laminectomy” encompassed his weak ankle doriflexors, the ALJ’s decision not to list it as a separate impairment is properly…