(SS) Carson v. Commissioner of Social Security

I. DISCUSSION

26 Plaintiff makes the following arguments: 27 1. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred at Step Three, because she failed to 28 consider properly whether Plaintiff’s impairment meets or equals Listing 1.04 for disorders of the spine; and 2. The ALJ failed to include work-related limitations in the RFC consistent with the nature and intensity of Plaintiff’s limitations, and failed to offer clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. 5 A. Consideration of Listing 6 Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred by failing to properly consider whether Plaintiff’s 7 impairment meets or equals Listing 1.04 for disorders of the spine. 8 “An ALJ must evaluate the relevant evidence before concluding that a claimant's 9 impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment. A boilerplate finding is insufficient to 10 support a conclusion that a claimant's impairment does not do so.” Lewis v. Apfel 236 F.3d 503, 11 512 (9th Cir. 2001). 12 The ALJ stated as follows regarding Listing 1.04: 13 The claimant’s degenerative disc disease (lumbar) does not meet the criteria of listing…