JEREMY D. PETERSON, Magistrate Judge.
Claimant has requested judicial review of the Social Security Administration's ("SSA") denial of his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits.
On appeal, I ask only whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings and whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). I will uphold the ALJ's decision if it is rational, even if there is another rational interpretation of the evidence; I may not substitute my judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id.
Claimant seeks remand, arguing that the ALJ erred at step two of the five-step disability-determination process in finding that her alleged transverse myelitis—an "inflammation of both sides of one section of the spinal cord," ECF No. 15 at 8—was not a medically determinable impairment.
Even if the ALJ erred in not recognizing claimant's alleged transverse myelitis as an independent medically determinable impairment, any such error would be harmless. See Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding harmless error where the ALJ (1) erred in not recognizing bursitis as a severe impairment at step two but (2) considered the limitations imposed by bursitis at step four). As is suggested by the ALJ's summary of Dr. Maya's views—quoted above—the ALJ carried forward in her analysis the functional limitations alleged by claimant to be associated with transverse myelitis, including limitations associated with balance, coordination, and the need for bathroom access. Indeed, the ALJ went beyond the limitations that would have been directly supported by Dr. Maya's findings: Dr. Maya recognized no "diagnostic tests or confirmed diagnosis" supporting functional capacity limits associated with claimant's balance and coordination, and identified no support for claimant's alleged need for rapid bathroom access—yet the ALJ included in her residual functional capacity ("RFC") determination limits on exposure to uneven ground, unprotected heights, and hazardous machinery; and recognized claimant's need for "ready access to the bathroom." AR 27, 22. Claimant's brief does not argue otherwise; it is confined to challenging the ALJ's analysis at step two.
In sum, the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and claimant has identified no reversible error in the ALJ's analysis. For the reasons stated in this order and on the record at oral argument, I deny claimant's appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The clerk of court is directed (1) to enter judgment in favor of defendant and against claimant Deborah L. Piper and (2) to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.