The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JUAN RAMON AGUILAR, Case No. 2:24-cv-3238-WBS-JDP (SS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff challenges the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
18 (“Commissioner”) denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title
19 XVI of the Social Security Act. Both parties have moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 10 &
20 14. For the reasons discussed below, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion be granted, the
21 Commissioner’s be denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
22 Standard of Review
23 An Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying an application for disability
24 benefits will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record and if the correct
25 legal standards have been applied. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th
26 Cir. 2006). “‘Substantial evidence’ means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a
27 preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to
28 support a conclusion.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007).
1 “The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical
2 testimony, and resolving ambiguities.” Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001)
3 (citations omitted). “Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,
4 one of which supports the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas v.
5 Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the court will not affirm on grounds upon
6 which the ALJ did not rely. Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We are
7 constrained to review the reasons the ALJ asserts.”).
8 A five-step sequential evaluation process is used in assessing eligibility for Social Security
9 disability benefits. Under this process the ALJ is required to determine: (1) whether the claimant
10 is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a medical impairment (or
11 combination of impairments) that qualifies as severe; (3) whether any of the claimant’s
12 impairments meet or medically equal the severity of one of the impairments in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404,
13 Subpt. P, App. 1; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the
14 claimant can perform other specified types of work. See Barnes v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 702, 703
15 n.3 (9th Cir. 2018). The claimant bears the burden of proof for the first four steps of the inquiry,
16 while the Commissioner bears the burden at the final step. Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d
17 949, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2001).
18 Background
19 On September 28, 2021, plaintiff filed an application for SSI, alleging disability beginning
20 on September 28, 2021. Administrative Record (“AR”) 45, 212-21. After his application was
21 denied both initially and upon reconsideration, plaintiff testified at a hearing before an
22 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). AR 40-62, 126-31, 135-40. On May 6, 2024, the ALJ issued
23 a decision finding that plaintiff was not disabled. AR 17-34. Specifically, the ALJ found:
24
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
25 September 21 [sic], 2021, the application date.
26
* * *
27
28
1 2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative
disc disease of the lumbar spine with spondylosis,
2
spondylolisthesis, and radiculopathy; degenerative disc disease of
3 the cervical spine; obesity; chronic pain syndrome; depressive
disorder; bipolar II disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder
4 (PTSD); somatic symptom disorder; social anxiety disorder; and
panic disorder.
5
* * *
6
7 3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of
8 the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
9 * * *
10
4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned
11 finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work, as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b), except that
12 he can occasionally kneel, couch, stoop, balance, and crawl, as
defined in the Selected Characteristics of the D.O.T., and can
13 occasionally climb stairs and ramps. He can never climb ladders,
ropes, and scaffolds, and can never be exposed to unprotected
14
heights and moving mechanical parts. He requires a cane to
15 ambulate. He can tolerate occasional exposure to extreme cold and
vibration. In addition, he can understand, carry-out, and remember
16 simple instructions, and use judgment to make simple work-related
decisions. He can occasionally interact with supervisors and co-
17 workers, and can never interact with the public. He can deal with
occasional changes in a routine work setting.
18
19 * * *
20 5. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
21 * * *
22
6. The claimant was born [in] 1976 and was 45 years old, which is
23 defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the
application was filed.
24
7. The claimant has at least a high school education.
25
26 8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant’s
past relevant work is unskilled.
27
9. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and
28 residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant
1 numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.
2
* * *
3
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the
4 Social Security Act, since September 21 [sic], 2021, the date the
application was filed.
5
6 AR 19-34 (citations to the code of regulations omitted).
7 Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council, which denied the request. AR 1-6. He
8 now seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
9 Analysis
10 Plaintiff raises five arguments. First, he contends that the ALJ erred in concluding that his
11 mental impairment did not meet Listings for depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety
12 disorder. ECF No. 10 at 18-23. Second, he argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions
13 of four physicians. Third, he claims that the ALJ erred in rejecting his testimony about the
14 severity of his limitations. Fourth, he contends that the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported
15 by substantial evidence. Finally, he argues that the ALJ impermissibly relied on the Vocational
16 Expert’s testimony to conclude that there were jobs in the national economy that he could perform.
17 Id. at 42-43. I find plaintiff’s third argument, that the ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons for
18 rejecting his testimony, persuasive. Because this error warrants remand, I decline to address
19 plaintiff’s remaining arguments.
20 In the Ninth Circuit, courts follow a “two-step analysis for determining the extent to which
21 a claimant’s symptom testimony must be credited.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th
22 Cir. 2017). “‘First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical
23 evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or
24 other symptoms alleged.’” Id. (quoting Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15 (9th Cir.
25 2014)). If the claimant meets this requirement, and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ
26 can reject his symptom testimony only by offering specific, clear, and convincing reasons for
27 doing so. Id. “This is not an easy requirement to meet: the clear and convincing standard is the
28
1 most demanding required in Social Security cases.” Id. The ALJ’s reasons must also be supported
2 by substantial evidence in the record. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002).
3 At the hearing, plaintiff testified that he experiences lower back pain that extends down his
4 legs. AR 47. He claimed that he has constant numbness in his lower and upper extremities, and
5 that he experiences pain throughout his neck and back. Id. He reported that on good days, he
6 takes his medications in the morning, but he is unable to get out of bed until they take effect. AR
7 47-48. He stated that on bad days, which typically occur about three times a week, he does not get
8 out of bed due to his depression. He testified that he has anxiety when leaving his home, which he
9 attributed to being around other people. AR 48. He reported experiencing panic attacks, difficulty
10 sleeping, and memory and concentration problems. He uses a cane for ambulation, is only able to
11 stand for fifteen to twenty minutes before needing to sit down, and can lift up to ten to fifteen
12 pounds. AR 51-52.
13 In a functional report, plaintiff stated that his ability to sit, stand, and walk is limited due to
14 his back pain and numbness; his anxiety and depression would likely impair his ability to be
15 consistent with attendance; and his ability to lift and carry items is restricted due to back pain and
16 use of cane while walking. AR 273. He also reported difficulty following oral instructions, and
17 that he can only pay attention for three to five minutes before his mind starts to wonder. AR 278.
18 He is able to prepare simple meals and manage his personal care, although he also stated that he
19 does not shower as often as he should and that some days he does not change clothes. AR 274.
20 After summarizing plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ found that plaintiff’s “allegations
21 concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms are not consistent with
22 the objective evidence of record.” Id. at 24. This boilerplate statement—one consistently used by
23 ALJs—is followed by a summary of the medical evidence of record, running from August 2009 to
24 March 2024. In discussing this evidence, the ALJ did not explain how these records undermined
25 any of plaintiff’s subjective complaint. Instead, the ALJ’s lengthy summary of the medical
26 records is followed by the following explanation of how he evaluated plaintiff’s allegations:
27 As for the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and
limiting effects of his symptoms, they are inconsistent. He alleged
28
1 significant exertional limitations; however, during the medical
consultative exam, he had 5/5 strength in his bilateral upper and
2
lower extremities, including grip and pincher. He reported that he
3 was self-employed “online.” He also reported that he lived alone
and was independent with his activities of daily living. He received
4 minimal treatment for his back. The only visits in the record for his
back pain are with pain management and physical therapy. In
5 October 2023, his physical therapist noted that he was doing well,
and that he had not returned calls to schedule appointments.
6
Regarding his mental health, his condition remained mostly stable
7 with medications. During mental status exams with psychiatry, he
was engaged and cooperative. His insight, judgment, and memory
8 were fair. His attention and concentration were intact. He was
oriented to person, place, time, and situation. His intelligence was
9 average. During the June 2022 psychiatric consultative exam, he
had fair grooming and hygiene. He was alert and oriented to person,
10
place, time, and situation. He could recall 4/4 objects immediately
11 and 2/4 after 5 minutes. His recent and remote memory were mostly
intact. His fund of knowledge was within normal limits. His
12 intelligence was average. He could make change accurately and do
simple math. He could do 2 of 3 serial sevens. His concentration
13 was fair.
14 AR 27.
15 This explanation amounts to little more than a second, condensed summary of plaintiff’s
16 medical records and does constitute a specific, clear, and convincing reason for discounting
17 plaintiff’s subject complaint. Critically, the ALJ does not identify the testimony that purportedly
18 conflicted with this evidence. In fact, the ALJ does not even identify the testimony that he found
19 to be not credible. See Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir. 2015) ( “We cannot
20 review whether the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting [Lambert’s]
21 pain testimony where, as here, the ALJ never identified which testimony she found not credible,
22 and never explained which evidence contradicted that testimony.”); Treichler v. Comm’r Soc. Sec.
23 Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The ALJ must identify the testimony that was
24 not credible, and specify ‘what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.’”) (quoting
25 Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998)).
26 In an effort to address the shortcomings in the ALJ’s decision, the Commissioner’s motion
27 highlights evidence in the record that is ostensibly inconsistent with plaintiff’s alleged limitations.
28
1 For instance, the Commissioner contends that the ALJ properly rejected plaintiff statement that he
2 can only stand for fifteen to twenty minutes based on exam findings that showed plaintiff had full
3 strength in his arms and legs observes that while, exam findings.
4 The ALJ, however, never identified this inconsistency, or any other one, as a basis for his
5 adverse credibility determination. Because this court’s review is limited to the rationale provided
6 by the ALJ, the Commissioner’s post-hoc rationalizations cannot salvage the ALJ’s failure to
7 provide clear and specific reasons for rejecting plaintiff’s subjective complaints. See Garrison v.
8 Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We review only the reasons provided by the ALJ in
9 the disability determination and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not
10 rely.”); Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Although the inconsistencies
11 identified by the district court could be reasonable inferences drawn from the ALJ’s summary of
12 the evidence, the credibility determination is exclusively the ALJ’s to make, and we are
13 constrained to review the reasons the ALJ asserts.”) (citations and modifications omitted).
14 Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the ALJ erred by rejecting plaintiff’s testimony
15 absent clear and convincing reasons. Accordingly, the matter should be remanded for further
16 proceedings. See Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A district court may
17 reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the case
18 for a rehearing, but the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for
19 additional investigation or explanation.”) (internal quotes and citations omitted); Treichler, 775
20 F.3d at 1105 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Where . . . an ALJ makes a legal error, but the record is uncertain
21 and ambiguous, the proper approach is to remand the case to the agency.”).
22 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
23 1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 10, be GRANTED.
24 2. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14, be DENIED.
25 3. The matter be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s order.
26 4. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor and close this case.
27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of
1 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the
2 || court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to
3 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed
4 || within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
5 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See
6 || Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
7 | 1991).
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ March 13, 2026 aw——
1] JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28