work-related limitation of function” .... 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00A; see Markle, 324 F.3d at 188 (discussing the revised regulations); see also Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury, 65 Fed. Reg. 50746, 50772 (Aug. 21, 2000). The ALJ found that plaintiff had severe physical and mental impairments consisting of diabetes mellitus with retinopathy and an affective mood disorder. [AR 21-22], Therefore, under both Ninth Circuit law and the Commissioner’s newer, more demanding regulatory standard, plaintiff has “a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function” within the meaning of section 12.05. See Fanning, 827 F.2d at 633 n. 3; see also Markle, 324 F.3d at 188 (<HOLDING>); Mowery v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 966, 973 (6th
holding that a city which was sued by an electrical contractor for breach of contract following a dispute regarding additional costs necessary to complete electrical work could maintain a common law indemnity claim against a design professional to the extent the city is found to be without fault for the conduct which forms the basis of the indemnity claim holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute holding that because defendants made the statements in the press release and signed the sec disclosure forms in light of a preliminary finding of a primary violation it could not dismiss the  20a action holding that even absent the commissioners clarifying regulation the severity of the claimants other impairments obstructive pulmonary disease hypertension obesity and gout which limit him to some forms of light work constitute impairments imposing additional and significant workrelated limitations of function  holding neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause requirement should apply to noninvestigatory workrelated purposes or for investigations of workrelated misconduct 