Hilfinger-Dowell

*746 MEMORANDUM **

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not ignore Dowell’s autopsy report but cited to it several times and accepted its reported cause of death as “atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.” Nor did the autopsy report create an ambiguity triggering the ALJ’s duty to develop the record more fully. While the autopsy report showed arterial blockage, it was not enough to show that Richard Do-well’s impairment met or equaled the impairment listed at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 4.04C (2003). Disability under section 4.04C requires not only severe arterial blockage, see § 4.04C1, but also “marked limitation of physical activity,” § 4.04C2. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that, for the relevant period—March 22, 2000 to February 18, 2003—Dowell did not meet or equal the latter requirement. See Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir.1999).

Such evidence includes: Dowell’s October 2001 claim to Dr. Drewitz that he suffered only minor fatigue and was busy working in an auto garage; Dowell’s participation in an October 2002 vocational rehabilitation course; Dowell’s November 2002 report on daily activities to Dr. Narvaiz; and Dr.…