# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · March 16, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370441

## Case

- **Full name:** David M. P. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** March 16, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370441

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DAVID M. P.,1 Case No.: 8:24-2181 ADS

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

14 FRANK BISIGNANO,2 Commissioner of
Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16
17 I. INTRODUCTION
18 Plaintiff Michael M. P. (“Plaintiff”) challenges Defendant Frank Bisignano,
19 Commissioner of Social Security’s (hereinafter “Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denial
20 of Plaintiff’s application for supplemental social security income under Title XVI of the
21

1 Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil
22
Procedure 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.
23
2 Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank Bisignano is
24
substituted for Martin O’Malley as the defendant.
1 Social Security Act. Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
2 decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of new evidence Plaintiff
3 submitted to the Appeals Council after entry of the ALJ decision. (Dkt. No. 14, Pl. Br. at
4 7.) For the reasons stated below, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, and this
5 matter is dismissed with prejudice.

6 II. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL
7 A review of the entire record reflects certain facts relevant to this appeal. Plaintiff
8 is in his thirties. Plaintiff alleges he cannot work due to due to degenerative disc disease
9 (“DDD”), disc displacement, pain unspecified, bipolar disorder, depression, and
10 generalized anxiety disorder (“GAD”). (Administrative Record, “AR” 101.) He had been
11 diagnosed with herniated lumbar disc, L3, L4, and L5; he had obsessive compulsive
12 disorder (OCD), previous polysubstance abuser, rapid onset panic attacks, eating
13 disorder, and spinal fusion and disc replacement. (AR 101–102.)
14 Plaintiff reported that he continued to have excruciating pain from his back; he
15 had loss of ROM in his neck, pain in his neck, and numbness and tingling in extremities
16 (AR 102.) At the hearing, the claimant testified that he cannot return to work as he

17 cannot perform functionally to the level required and continued to have back pain;
18 symptoms from mental impairments; and suffered from side effects of medications,
19 mostly drowsiness. (Id.)
20 III. PROCEEDINGS BELOW
21 A. Procedural History
22 Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) on March
23 18, 2021, alleging a disability onset date of July 8, 202. (AR 319–321.) Plaintiff’s
24 application was denied initially on March 23, 2022, and upon reconsideration on
1 September 6, 2022. (AR 97.) Plaintiff filed a written request for hearing, received on
2 November 2, 2022. (Id.) A telephonic hearing was held before ALJ M. Radensky on
3 June 16, 2023. (Id.) On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff requested postponement in order to
4 obtain a representative. (Id.) On October 20, 2023, the ALJ held a supplemental
5 hearing, via telephone. (Id.) Plaintiff appeared, without representation. (Id.)

6 On November 28, 2023, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled within the
7 meaning of the Social Security Act. (AR 107.) The ALJ’s decision became the
8 Commissioner’s final decision when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for
9 review on September 13, 2024. (AR 1–5.) Plaintiff then filed this action in District
10 Court on October 8, 2024, challenging the ALJ’s decision. (Dkt. No. 1.)
11 On January 8, 2025, Defendant filed an Answer, as well as a copy of the
12 Administrative Record. (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff filed an opening brief (“Plaintiff’s Brief”)
13 on February 5, 2025. (Dkt. No. 14.) Defendant filed a responsive brief (“Defendant’s
14 Brief”) on April 7, 2025. (Dkt. No. 17.) Plaintiff filed a Reply on April 21, 2025. (Dkt.
15 No. 18.) The case is ready for decision.3
16 B. Summary of ALJ Decision After Hearing

17 In the decision (AR 97–107), the ALJ followed the required five-step sequential
18 evaluation process to assess whether Plaintiff was disabled under the Social Security
19 Act.4 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not
20

3 The parties filed consents to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge,
21
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), including for entry of final Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 9-
10.)
22
4 The ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process to assess whether a claimant
is disabled: Step one: Is the claimant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the
23
claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. Step two: Does the claimant
have a “severe” impairment? If so, proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not
24
disabled is appropriate. Step three: Does the claimant’s impairment or combination of
1 been engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 8, 2021, the application date. (AR
2 19.) At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
3 degenerative disc disease (DDD) of lumbar spine, status post fusion, anxiety, bipolar
4 disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (Id.) At step three, the ALJ
5 found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met

6 or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404,
7 Subpart P, Appendix 1 (the “Listings”). (Id.)
8 The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the RFC5 to perform
9 light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except occasional postural
activities; no ladders, scaffolds or ropes; and no unprotected heights or
10 dangerous moving machinery. He is limited to occasional interaction with
coworkers and supervisors; no fast-paced work such as rapid assembly or
11 conveyor belt work; and only routine changes in a work setting.

12
(AR 21.) At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff has no past relevant work. (AR 24.) At
13
step five, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ
14
found that there were jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that
15
Plaintiff could perform, including representative occupations such as cleaner
16
housekeeping, marker, and routing clerk. (AR 107.) Accordingly, the ALJ determined
17 that Plaintiff was not disabled since July 8, 2021, through the date of the decision. (Id.)
18
19
20

impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1?
21
If so, the claimant is automatically determined disabled. If not, proceed to step four.
Step four: Is the claimant capable of performing his past work? If so, the claimant is not
22
disabled. If not, proceed to step five. Step five: Does the claimant have the residual
functional capacity to perform any other work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If
23
not, the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
5 An RFC is what a claimant can still do despite existing exertional and nonexertional
24
limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).
1 IV. ANALYSIS
2 A. Issue on Appeal
3 Plaintiff raises for review the issue of whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by
4 substantial evidence in light of new evidence Plaintiff submitted to the Appeals Council
5 after entry of the ALJ decision. (Pl. Br. at 7.)

6 B. Standard of Review
7 A United States District Court may review the Commissioner’s decision to deny
8 benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The District Court is not a trier of the facts but
9 is confined to ascertaining by the record before it if the Commissioner’s decision is
10 based upon substantial evidence. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014)
11 (District Court’s review is limited to only grounds relied upon by ALJ) (citing Connett v.
12 Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003)). A court must affirm an ALJ’s findings of
13 fact if they are supported by substantial evidence and if the proper legal standards were
14 applied. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001) (as amended). An
15 ALJ can satisfy the substantial evidence requirement “by setting out a detailed and
16 thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his

17 interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th
18 Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
19 “[T]he Commissioner’s decision cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a specific
20 quantum of supporting evidence. Rather, a court must consider the record as a whole,
21 weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the Secretary’s
22 conclusion.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations and
23 internal quotation marks omitted). “‘Where evidence is susceptible to more than one
24 rational interpretation,’ the ALJ’s decision should be upheld.” Ryan v. Comm’r, 528
1 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.
2 2005)); see Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006) (“If the
3 evidence can support either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s conclusion, we may not
4 substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ.”). However, the Court may review only “the
5 reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination and may not affirm the ALJ

6 on a ground upon which he did not rely.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir.
7 2007) (citation omitted).
8 Lastly, even if an ALJ errs, the decision will be affirmed where such error is
9 harmless, that is, if it is “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination,”
10 or if “the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned, even if the agency explains its
11 decision with less than ideal clarity.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th
12 Cir. 2015) (as amended) (citation omitted); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th
13 Cir. 2012), superseded by regulation on other grounds as stated in Smith v. Kijakazi, 14
14 F.4th 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2021).
15 C. The ALJ’s Decision Is Supported by Substantial Evidence
16 Phillips submitted additional medical evidence to the Appeals Council. (See AR

17 6–91.) The Appeals Council found the medical evidence submitted “does not show a
18 reasonable probability that it would change the outcome of the decision.” (AR 2.)
19 Included in the additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council are a February
20 2024 MRI of the lumbar spine and a February 2024 treatment record. (AR 30–32, 42–
21 44.) The ALJ issued his decision on November 28, 2023. (AR 107.)
22 The MRI assessment states that Plaintiff has a three-millimeter disc bulge
23 contributing to mild spinal canal narrowing at L2-L3 as well as severe multifactorial
24 spinal canal narrowing including 2 millimeter retrolisthesis of L3 on 4 and disc
1 extrusion measuring approximately 8 millimeters at L3-L4. (AR 31.) The MRI also
2 revealed probable mild bilateral foraminal narrowing at L4-L5 and moderate left and
3 mild right foraminal narrowing at L5-S1. (Id.)
4 The newly submitted treatment note was written by Dr. Kurtz after he examined
5 Plaintiff on February 21, 2024. (AR 42-44.) Dr. Kurtz noted that Plaintiff had abnormal

6 motor strength, muscle weakness and difficulties with fine and gross movements in his
7 lower extremities and hands. (AR 43.) Dr. Kurtz specifically stated that Plaintiff’s
8 “cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy”, “lumbago with sciatica”, and “chronic low
9 back pain” all had onset dates of February 21, 2024. (AR 42.)
10 Plaintiff argues that the MRI assessment and treatment notes relate back to the
11 period of time before the ALJ issued his decision, because the symptoms could not have
12 developed spontaneously. (Pl. Br. at 6.) Plaintiff argues there is a reasonable possibility
13 that the new evidence would change the outcome of the ALJ’s decision because it
14 directly contradicts objective evidence relied upon by the ALJ. (Id. at 7.)
15 In opposition, Defendant argues that the late submitted evidence does not
16 undermine the ALJ’s decision. Defendant contends that the MRI and treatment notes

17 are dated more than two months after the ALJ’s decision and do not relate back to the
18 relevant period. (Def. Br. at 5.) Furthermore, according to Defendant, the MRI reflects
19 degenerative spinal changes which are not inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC finding.
20 (Id.)
21 1. Legal Standard for New Evidence
22 The Ninth Circuit has held that “when a claimant submits evidence for the first
23 time to the Appeals Council, which considers that evidence in denying review of the
24 ALJ's decision, the new evidence is part of the administrative record.” Brewes v.
1 Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2012). Consequently, “the
2 district court must consider [it] in determining whether the Commissioner's decision is
3 supported by substantial evidence.” Id.
4 2. The New Evidence Does Not Undermine the ALJ’s Decision
5 Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could

6 reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, but that Plaintiff’s testimony was
7 not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.
8 (AR 102.) However, the ALJ cited to many reasons, amounting to substantial evidence,
9 for why he discounted Plaintiff’s testimony about back pain and found that Plaintiff’s
10 back problems were not disabling.
11 The ALJ cited to an orthopedic evaluation in February 2022, at which Plaintiff
12 “was in no acute distress; he was able to ambulate without an antalgic gait; cervical
13 range of motion (ROM) was within normal limits; and ROM of the shoulders, elbows,
14 wrists, hands and fingers was within normal limits.” (AR 104.) The ALJ’s decision
15 pointed to “x-rays of the lumbar spine …, which showed artificial disc in good position at
16 L4-5; anterior fusion at L5-S1; and possible laminectomy at L5.” (AR 103.) The ALJ

17 also noted “additional inconsistencies in the record that further undermine the
18 claimant’s persuasiveness. The claimant testified that he wears a back brace, but this is
19 not mentioned in the record. The evidence reveals that there is no assistive device
20 needed, and there are no motor or sensory deficits on examination. It was observed that
21 the claimant had normal gait and he walked into the examination room without
22 assistance of a walking device.” (AR 104.) The new evidence does not contradict the
23 evidence the ALJ cited for his findings.
24
1 In addition, the new evidence is not inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC finding. The
2 ALJ already restricted Plaintiff to light work, except postural activities, no ladders,
3 scaffolds or ropes and no unprotected heights or dangerous moving machinery. (AR
4 101.) While the MRI assessment shows severe spinal canal narrowing at L3-L4, Plaintiff
5 does not argue that this new evidence would have any impact on the RFC or that

6 Plaintiff could not do light work based on this evidence. Therefore, even if the decision
7 was not supported by substantial evidence in light of Plaintiff’s newly submitted
8 evidence, the error is harmless and does not warrant remand.
9 V. CONCLUSION
10 For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Social Security Commissioner is
11 AFFIRMED, and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Judgment shall be entered
12 accordingly.
13
14 DATED: March 13, 2026

15
/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth
16 THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH
United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370441. Public record. Not legal advice.