Brackenbury

MEMORANDUM **

Alfred Eugene Brackenbury appeals the district court’s decision affirming denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income by the Commissioner of Social Security. We affirm.

I

Brackenbury argues that the ALJ’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence in that his impairments continued to equal Listed Impairment 12.04 beyond February 1, 2003. Specifically, he contends that the opinions of two examining physicians were improperly rejected in favor of that of a non-examining medical expert. See Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir.1984). However, neither Dr. Jenkins nor Dr. Kolilis found that Brackenbury met all the requirements of the listing. Dr. Davis, on the other hand, testified that Brackenbury’s condition equaled 12.04 only from January 2002 through February 2003. Although the examining physicians’ reports could be read differently, the ALJ reasonably interpreted both as consistent with his view of the evidence. See Batson v. Comm’r. of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2004) (instructing that “[w]hen evidence reasonably supports either confirming or reversing the ALJ’s decision, we may not substitute our judgment…