Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WESTERN DIVISION

11 TOBIAS M. P.,1 ) ) Case No. 2:25-cv-02608-JDE

Plaintiff, )

12 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

13 v. ) ) ORDER

)

14 FRANK BISIGNANO, 2 )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

15 )

)

16 Defendant. )

17

18 On March 25, 2025, Plaintiff Tobias M. P. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint

19 seeking review of the denial of his application for child’s insurance benefits

20 (“CIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). The Court has reviewed

21 Plaintiff’s opening brief (Dkt. 14, “Pl. Br.”), the Commissioner’s answering brief

22 (Dkt. 16, “Def. Br.”), and the Administrative Record (Dkt. 9, et seq., “AR”).

23 The matter is now ready for decision.

24

25

1 Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.

26 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and

Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

27

2 Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, is

28 substituted as defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1 I.

2 BACKGROUND

3 On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff applied for CIB under Title II of the Social

4 Security Act as a disabled adult based on the earnings of his mother, alleging

5 disability beginning on July 1, 2017. AR 15. He filed an application for SSI the

6 same day with the same alleged disability onset date. Id. Plaintiff was born on

7 April 2, 2003, making him younger than 22 years old at the alleged onset date.

8 AR 17. After the applications were denied initially and on reconsideration, an

9 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on March 8, 2024, at which

10 Plaintiff, represented by counsel, and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. AR 15

11 On March 27, 2024, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled. AR 26. The

12 ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 1,

13 2017. AR 17. The ALJ determined Plaintiff suffered from the following severe

14 impairments: Type I diabetes, Lyme disease, hypogammaglobulinemia, chronic

15 inflammatory polyneuropathy, depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome. AR

16 18. The ALJ assessed Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of

17 impairments that meets or medically equals a listed impairment. Id.

18 The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity

19 (“RFC”) to perform light work,3 with the following limitations:

20 he can perform occasional postural activities, but cannot climb

21 ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. He cannot work around unprotected

22 heights. He is able to perform simple tasks in a routine

23

24

3 “Light work” is defined as “lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with

25 frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the

weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of

26

walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing

27 and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of performing a full or

wide range of light work, [a claimant] must have the ability to do substantially all of

28

these activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b).

1 environment. He cannot perform work requiring public

2 interaction. He cannot perform fast paced work, such as rapid

3 assembly or conveyor belt work.

4 AR 20. The ALJ found, in light of Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience,

5 RFC, and the VE’s testimony, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national

6 economy that he can perform, including cleaner housekeeper (Dictionary of

7 Occupational Titles [“DOT”] 323.687-014), garment sorter (DOT 222.687-014),

8 and mail clerk (DOT 209.687-026), rendering him not disabled. AR 25.

9 The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making the

10 ALJ’s decision the agency’s final decision. AR 1-3.

11 II.

12 LEGAL STANDARDS

13 A. Standard of Review

14 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court may review a decision to deny

15 benefits. The ALJ’s findings and decision should be upheld if they are free

16 from legal error and supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a

17 whole. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015) (as

18 amended); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial

19 evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as

20 adequate to support a conclusion. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035

21 (9th Cir. 2007). It is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Id.

22 To assess whether substantial evidence supports a finding, the court

23 “must review the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence

24 that supports and the evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s

25 conclusion.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). “If the

26 evidence can reasonably support either affirming or reversing,” the reviewing

27 court “may not substitute its judgment” for that of the Commissioner. Id. at

28 720-21; see also Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Even

1 when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, [the

2 court] must uphold the ALJ’s findings if they are supported by inferences

3 reasonably drawn from the record.”), superseded by regulation on other

4 grounds as stated in Smith v. Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2021).

5 Lastly, even if an ALJ errs, the decision will be affirmed if the error is harmless

6 (Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115), that is, if it is “inconsequential to the ultimate

7 nondisability determination,” or if “the agency’s path may reasonably be

8 discerned, even if the agency explains its decision with less than ideal clarity.”

9 Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 492 (citation omitted); Smith, 14 F.4th at 1111

10 (even where the “modest burden” of the substantial evidence standard is not

11 met, “we will not reverse an ALJ’s decision where the error was harmless”).

12 A child who is 18 or older may receive benefits based on disability if: (1)

13 he has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets the definition

14 of disability for adults; (2) the disability began before age 22; and (3) the adult

15 child’s natural parent worked long enough to be insured and is receiving

16 retirement or disability benefits or is deceased. 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(d), 416(e); 20

17 C.F.R. § 404.350(a). To be eligible for child’s insurance benefits under Title II

18 of the Act, Plaintiff must establish disability before April 2, 2025, the date he

19 turned 22, and show that such disability was continuous and uninterrupted

20 until he filed his application for child’s insurance benefits in 2017. Smolen v.

21 Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1280 (9th Cir. 1996) (“the claimant must be disabled

22 continuously and without interruption beginning before her twenty-second

23 birthday until the time she applied for child’s disability insurance benefits”),

24 superseded on other grounds by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)).

25 B. The Five-Step Sequential Evaluation

26 When a claim reaches an ALJ, the ALJ conducts a five-step sequential

27 evaluation to determine at each step if the claimant is disabled. See Ford v.

28 Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2020); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110.

1 First, the ALJ considers if the claimant now works at “substantial gainful

2 activity.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110. If not, the ALJ proceeds to a second step

3 to determine whether the claimant has a “severe” medically determinable

4 physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted

5 for more than twelve months. Id. If so, the ALJ proceeds to a third step to

6 assess whether the claimant’s impairments render the claimant disabled because

7 they meet or equal any of the listed impairments in the Social Security

8 Regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See Rounds v.

9 Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015). If the claimant’s

10 impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment, before proceeding to the

11 fourth step the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC, that is, what the claimant can

12 do on a sustained basis despite the limitations from her impairments. See 20

13 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p,

14 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996). After assessing the RFC, the ALJ proceeds to

15 the fourth step to determine if, in light of the claimant’s RFC, the claimant can

16 perform past relevant work as actually or generally performed. See Stacy v.

17 Colvin, 825 F.3d 563, 569 (9th Cir. 2016). If the claimant cannot perform past

18 relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to a fifth and final step to determine whether

19 there is any other work, in light of the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and

20 work experience, that the claimant can perform and that exists in “significant

21 numbers” in either the national or regional economies. See Tackett v. Apfel,

22 180 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566(a), 416.966(a).

23 A claimant who can do other work is not disabled; a claimant who cannot do

24 other work and meets the duration requirement is disabled. See Tackett, 180

25 F.3d at 1099; see also Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 787 n.1 (9th Cir. 2022)

26 (summarizing the steps and noting that “[t]he recent [2017] changes to the

27 Social Security regulations did not affect the familiar ‘five-step sequential

28 evaluation process.’”).

1 The claimant generally bears the burden at steps one through four to

2 show the claimant is disabled or meets the requirements to proceed to the next

3 step and bears the ultimate burden to show disability. See, e.g., Ford, 950 F.3d

4 at 1148; Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110; Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1432 (9th

5 Cir. 1995). However, at Step Five, the ALJ has a limited burden of production

6 to identify representative jobs that the claimant can perform and that exist in

7 “significant” numbers in the economy. See Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1161

8 (9th Cir. 2012); Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1100.

9 III.

10 DISCUSSION

11 Plaintiff raises the following issues, reordered below:

12 Issue No. 1: Whether the ALJ properly rejected Plaintiff’s subjective

13 symptom testimony.

14 Issue No. 2: Whether the ALJ properly formulated Plaintiff’s RFC.

15 A. Subjective Symptom Testimony

16 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to articulate clear and convincing

17 reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting his symptom testimony.

18 Pl. Br. at 11-18. The Commissioner counters that the ALJ properly discounted

19 Plaintiff’s subjective statements on four asserted grounds. Def. Br. at 2-13.

20 1. Applicable Law

21 When a disability claimant produces objective medical evidence of an

22 impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other

23 symptoms alleged, absent evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide

24 “specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony

25 regarding the severity of the claimant’s symptoms.” Treichler v. Comm’r of

26 Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal

27 quotations omitted); Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2004); see

28 also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). “The standard isn’t whether [the federal] court is

1 convinced, but instead whether the ALJ’s rationale is clear enough that it has

2 the power to convince.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499 (9th Cir. 2022).

3 “This standard is ‘the most demanding required in Social Security cases.’”

4 Smith, 14 F.4th at 1112 (quoting Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 278

5 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1015

6 (9th Cir. 2014) (“This [standard] is not an easy requirement to meet.”).

7 The ALJ’s findings “must be sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing

8 court to conclude the [ALJ] rejected [the] claimant’s testimony on permissible

9 grounds and did not arbitrarily discredit the claimant’s testimony.” Moisa, 367

10 F.3d at 885 (alterations in original) (citation omitted). “General findings are

11 insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and

12 what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Reddick, 157 F.3d at

13 722 (citation omitted); see also SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016)

14 (the ALJ’s “determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the

15 weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported

16 by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any

17 subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s

18 symptoms”). If the ALJ’s assessment of the testimony is reasonable and is

19 supported by substantial evidence, it is not the court’s role to “second-guess” it.

20 Smartt, 53 F.4th at 500 (citing Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th

21 Cir. 2001)). “Long-standing principles of administrative law require [the

22 Court] to review the ALJ’s decision based on the reasoning and factual

23 findings offered by the ALJ—not post hoc rationalizations that attempt to

24 intuit what the adjudicator may have been thinking.” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc.

25 Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 2009).

26 2. Plaintiff’s Testimony

27 Plaintiff testified at the hearing and completed an “Exertional Activities

28 Questionnaire” (AR 262-80) which are summarized as follows. He has been

1 diagnosed with Lyme disease and Type I diabetes. AR 265-66. He claims

2 symptoms of anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (“OCD”). AR 42. He

3 experiences nausea, faintness, brain fog, weakness, hot flashes, shortness of

4 breath, difficulty standing, fatigue, and bodily pain. AR 262. He reported having

5 good days and bad days. AR 41. On his bad days, he would lay down for as

6 much as 18 to 20 hours. Id. On his good days, which he stated are “very rare,”

7 he would sleep or be in bed for around 14 hours. Id. He can sit at the computer

8 for almost an hour before having to lay down again. AR 52. He testified to

9 having “looping thoughts” and needing to wash his hands a lot. AR 42-43.

10 Plaintiff typically keeps himself busy by listening to music and watching

11 movies. AR 47. He also enjoys making art. AR 49. He has taken a few junior

12 college classes but has struggled with attendance and tardiness due to his fatigue

13 and pain. AR 38-39, 49-50.

14 Plaintiff uses an insulin pump for his diabetes. AR 42. Despite using the

15 insulin pump, he still has hypoglycemic episodes in which he feels as if he “can

16 hardly do anything.” AR 44. He also receives weekly IV infusions. AR 43. He

17 reported feeling worse after the infusions, with headaches and body aches, but

18 that this has not happened recently. AR 44. He takes Corlanor and

19 Hydrocortisone for hypo tachycardia. AR 47-48. Finally, he takes Prozac for his

20 anxiety and OCD. AR 47.

21 3. Analysis

22 After summarizing his testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s “medically

23 determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged

24 symptoms; however, [Plaintiff’s] statements concerning the intensity,

25 persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent

26 with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record[.]” AR 21. The ALJ

27 found Plaintiff’s “subjective complaints and alleged limitations are

28 disproportionate to the objective findings.” Id.

1 The Commissioner argues the ALJ’s properly discounted Plaintiff’s

2 symptom testimony on four grounds: (1) inconsistency with the objective

3 medical evidence; (2) inconsistency with Plaintiff’s daily activities; (3)

4 inconsistency with prior administrative findings; and (4) Plaintiff’s symptoms

5 are controlled with treatment. The Court considers each in turn.

6 i. Objective Medical Evidence

7 As noted, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony

8 because it was “not entirely consistent with” and “disproportionate to” the

9 objective medical evidence. AR 21. “When objective medical evidence in the

10 record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may

11 indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.” Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498.

12 However, a lack of corroborating medical evidence (as opposed to

13 contradictory medical evidence) cannot provide the sole basis for rejecting

14 subjective symptom testimony. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 679 (9th

15 Cir. 2017) (“an ALJ ‘may not disregard [a claimant’s testimony] solely because

16 it is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence’” (quoting

17 Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006)). Further, in

18 rejecting subjective symptom testimony, “[g]eneral findings are insufficient;

19 rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence

20 undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722 (citation

21 omitted). Stated differently, the ALJ must “show his work” by comparing the

22 inconsistencies between specific symptom testimony and contradictory medical

23 evidence. Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498-99.

24 Here, the ALJ failed to explain what parts of Plaintiff’s symptom

25 testimony were contradicted by the objective medical record, as opposed to

26 merely not supported by the record. The opinion cites several portions of the

27 medical record, such as Plaintiff reporting to his endocrinologist “no chronic

28 pains, headaches, visual disturbance, hypo/hyperactivity, sleep problems,

1 shortness of breath, palpitations, sweat, dizziness, change in hair/nails,

2 diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, heat/cold intolerance, or other cyclic symptoms.”

3 AR 21 (citing AR 802). But the opinion does not explain how such reports

4 contradict Plaintiff’s symptom testimony, in which he describes having good

5 days and bad days, and in which he describes severe fatigue. At best, the reports

6 reflect a lack of corroboration of some symptoms, not contradictory evidence.

7 Under Smartt and Trevizo, the mere lack of corroborating medical

8 evidence, as opposed to contradictory medical evidence, is not a proper basis on

9 its own upon which to discount symptom testimony. The opinion does not

10 recount objective medical evidence that contradicts Plaintiff’s testimony and

11 further fails to tie any alleged inconsistencies in the medical record to specific,

12 contrary symptom testimony. See Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498-99. The ALJ’s

13 finding that Plaintiff’s symptom testimony is “not substantiated by the objective

14 medical evidence” is not a clear and convincing reason, supported by

15 substantial evidence, to discount Plaintiff’s testimony here.

16 ii. Daily Activities

17 The Commissioner argues that an ALJ “may consider a claimant’s daily

18 activities in evaluating his subjective symptom testimony of debilitating

19 impairment. Dkt. 16 at 7 (citations omitted) (internal pagination). Of course,

20 the Commissioner is correct as a general matter. An ALJ may consider

21 “whether the claimant engages in daily activities inconsistent with the alleged

22 symptoms.” Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1040. Yet, the Ninth Circuit has

23 “repeatedly warned that ALJs must be especially cautious in concluding that

24 daily activities are inconsistent with testimony about pain, because impairments

25 that would unquestionably preclude work and all the pressures of a workplace

26 environment will often be consistent with doing more than merely resting in

27 bed all day.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1016; Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044,

28 1050 (9th Cir. 2001) (“This court has repeatedly asserted that the mere fact that

1 a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping,

2 driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from

3 her [testimony] as to her overall disability.”). Thus, in such circumstances, an

4 ALJ must make appropriate findings, supported by the record.

5 The Commissioner next recounts that the ALJ “observed that Plaintiff’s

6 daily activities, particularly in the past year, were at odds with his alleged

7 debilitation.” Def. Br. at 7. This statement is not entirely correct. The ALJ on

8 several occasions noted that Plaintiff at times had a “marked limitation in

9 activities of daily living” and “difficulty completing some activities of daily

10 living.” AR 19, 21. In other parts of the opinion, however, the ALJ noted

11 Plaintiff’s ability to prepare simple meals, exercise, attend college courses, and

12 monitor his diabetes. AR 19, 21. What the ALJ did not do, however, is

13 affirmatively base his decision to discredit Plaintiff’s symptom testimony on

14 Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. “Long-standing principles of administrative

15 law require us to review the ALJ’s decision based on the reasoning and factual

16 findings offered by the ALJ—not post hoc rationalizations that attempt to intuit

17 what the adjudicator may have been thinking.” Bray, 554 F.3d at 1225. As the

18 ALJ did not expressly state he was relying on Plaintiff’s activities of daily living

19 to discredit his symptom testimony, the Court cannot affirm on that basis.

20 iii. Prior Administrative Findings

21 Next, the Commissioner contends the prior administrative findings

22 (PAMFs) on reconsideration were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s subjective

23 physical symptoms. Def. Br. at 11. Although the ALJ cited the PAMFs and

24 recounted some of those findings, including a finding within one of the PAMFs

25 that Plaintiff’s “reported fatigue was out of proportion with the objective

26 medical evidence” (AR at 22-23), as with the activities of daily living, the ALJ

27 did not expressly cite the PAMFs as a basis for his decision to reject Plaintiff’s

28 symptom testimony. See Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 494 (finding that the

1 ALJ’s “summary of medical evidence in support of a residual functional

2 capacity finding is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for

3 finding the claimant’s symptom testimony not credible.”). As such, the citation

4 to the PAMFs is not a clear and convincing reason for discounting Plaintiff’s

5 symptom testimony.

6 iv. Controlled by Treatment

7 Finally, the Commissioner argues the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s

8 testimony because his “physical and mental impairments were effectively

9 treated.” Def. Br. at 9. “Impairments that can be controlled effectively with

10 medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for . . .

11 benefits.” Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.

12 2006); Odle v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 439, 440 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, the Court

13 agrees with the Commissioner that the ALJ properly found that Plaintiff’s Type

14 I diabetes has been effectively controlled by treatment. However, as the ALJ

15 noted, both Plaintiff and his mother recounted “he experiences severe fatigue

16 and sleeps 18-20 hours a day due to ‘several medical conditions including Lyme

17 disease and autoimmune issues.’” AR at 21. Although the ALJ recites

18 treatment for Plaintiff’s Lyme disease and some of the other ailments, with the

19 treatment for Lyme disease causing “improvement in [Plaintiff’s] joints,” the

20 ALJ does not make a finding, supported by substantial evidence, that Plaintiff’s

21 fatigue and sleeping for periods that would not allow for full time work have

22 been effectively controlled. As such, effective treatment is not a valid reason to

23 discount all of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony as it is not supported by

24 substantial evidence.

25 Accordingly, the ALJ erred by failing to provide clear and convincing

26 reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective

27 symptom testimony and such error is not harmless as it cannot be said that it is

28 “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination,” or that “the

1 agency’s path may reasonably be discerned, even if the agency explains its

2 decision with less than ideal clarity.” Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 492 (citation

3 omitted). Further, having found error that was not harmless in the ALJ’s partial

4 rejection of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony, as the assessment of such testimony

5 on remand may bear on the ALJ’s formulation of Plaintiff’s RFC, the Court

6 does not reach that other issue in this opinion.

7 B. Remand Is Appropriate

8 The Court has the discretion to remand the matter for further

9 proceedings. See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175-78 (9th Cir. 2000) (as

10 amended). Where further administrative proceedings would serve no useful

11 purpose or where the record has been fully developed, a court may direct an

12 immediate award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th

13 Cir. 2004); Harman, 211 F.3d at 1179 (noting “the decision of whether to

14 remand for further proceedings turns upon the likely utility of such

15 proceedings”). Remand for further proceedings is appropriate when

16 “outstanding issues must be resolved before a proper determination can be

17 made” and it is not clear from the record that the claimant is disabled. See

18 Bunnell v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2003).

19 Here, the Court concludes remand for further proceedings is warranted to

20 reassess Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. Because the record raises

21 questions about the extent to which Plaintiff’s symptoms render him disabled,

22 remand on an “open record” is appropriate before a proper disability

23 determination can be made by the ALJ. See Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 496.

24 Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ shall reassess Plaintiff’s reported

25 symptoms and, if necessary, reassess Plaintiff’s RFC, and if warranted, proceed

26 through the remaining steps of the disability analysis to determine what work, if

27 any, Plaintiff is capable of performing that exists in significant numbers in the

28 national economy.

1 IV.

2 ORDER

3 Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), IT THEREFORE IS

4 || ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the

5 ||Commissioner of Social Security and remanding this matter for further

6 ||administrative proceedings consistent with this Order.

LL

Dated: January 20, 2026 tbe

9 United States Magistrate Judge

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14