# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · June 1, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382754

## Case

- **Full name:** Severo M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** June 1, 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/11382754

## Opinion text

1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
10
11
SEVERO M.,1 Case No. CV 25-04320-AS
12 Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
13
v.
14
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner
of Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16

17

18
For the reasons discussed below, the decision of the
19
Commissioner is affirmed.
20
21
22
23
24
25

26 1 Plaintiff’s name is partly redacted in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation
27 of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of
the Judicial Conference of the United States.
28
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3 On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking review
4 of the Commissioner’s denial of Plaintiff’s application for
5 supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social
6 Security Act. (Dkt. No. 1). On July 17, 2025, Defendant filed an
7 Answer consisting of the Administrative Record (“AR”). (Dkt. No.
8 11). The parties subsequently filed opposing briefs setting forth
9 their respective positions regarding Plaintiff’s claims (“Pl.
10 Brief,” and “Def. Brief”). (Dkt Nos. 14, 16). The parties have
11 consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. (Dkt.
12 Nos. 8-9).
13
14 The Court has taken this matter under submission without oral
15 argument. See C.D. Cal. C. R. 7-15.
16
17 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
18
19 On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI
20 under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (AR 206-15). He alleged
21 disability since March 8, 2021,2 based on autoimmune vasculitis,
22 type two diabetes, and depression. (AR 206, 236). Plaintiff’s
23 application was denied, initially on January 9, 2023, and on
24 reconsideration on September 28, 2023. (AR 88-113). Plaintiff then
25

26 2 Plaintiff previously applied for and was denied
disability benefits through March 18, 2020, and again through
27 January 20, 2022. See AR 65-87 (denying benefits on initial review
of two separate applications).
28
1 requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).
2 (AR 129). On April 30, 2024, ALJ David Lacy held a telephonic
3 hearing and heard testimony from Plaintiff, who was represented by
4 counsel, and vocational expert (“VE”) Jane Colvin-Roberson. (AR
5 36-64). On June 3, 2024, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s application.
6 (AR 17-30).
7
8 The ALJ applied the requisite five-step process to evaluate
9 Plaintiff’s case. (AR 18-30). At step one, the ALJ found that
10 Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
11 the September 22, 2022, application date. (AR 19). At step two,
12 the ALJ found that Plaintiff has severe Wegener’s granulomatosis,
13 diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, polycythemia, neuropathy,
14 chronic kidney disease, and obesity. (AR 19-22). The ALJ found
15 Plaintiff’s mental impairments were nonsevere. (AR 20-22). At step
16 three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet
17 or equal a listing found in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
18 1. (AR 22-23).
19
20 Next the ALJ found the Plaintiff has a residual functional
21 capacity (“RFC”)3 for light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §
22 416.967(b), limited to no exposure to hazards or climbing ladders,
23 ropes or scaffolds, occasional exposure to uneven terrain and to
24 atmospheric conditions (e.g., fumes, odors, dusts, mists, gases,
25 poor ventilation, and light brighter than that typically found in
26 an indoor work environment such as an office or retail store),
27
3 A residual functional capacity is what a claimant can still
do despite existing exertional and nonexertional limitations. See
28
20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1).
1 occasional postural activities (i.e., balancing, crawling,
2 crouching, kneeling, stooping, climbing ramps or stairs), with the
3 ability to wear glasses during work. (AR 24-28). The ALJ rejected
4 Plaintiff’s testimony and statements suggesting greater limits than
5 the ALJ found to exist. (AR 24-28).
6
7 At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had no past relevant
8 work. (AR 28-29). At step five, considering Plaintiff’s age,
9 education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ found Plaintiff would
10 be capable of performing jobs existing in significant numbers in
11 the national economy. (AR 29-30 (adopting VE’s testimony at 56-
12 58)). The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had not been disabled since
13 the September 22, 2022, application date. (AR 30).
14
15 On April 8, 2025, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s
16 request to review the ALJ’s decision. (AR 1-3). Plaintiff now seeks
17 judicial review of the ALJ’s decision, which stands as the final
18 decision of the Commissioner. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
19
20 STANDARD OF REVIEW
21
22 This Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to determine
23 if it is free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence.
24 See Brewes v. Comm’r, 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012).
25 “Substantial evidence” is more than a mere scintilla, but less than
26 a preponderance. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir.
27 2014). “It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
28 accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Revels v. Berryhill,
1 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation
2 omitted).
3
4 To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding,
5 “a court must consider the record as a whole, weighing both evidence
6 that supports and evidence that detracts from the [Commissioner’s]
7 conclusion.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir.
8 2001) (internal quotation omitted). As a result, “[i]f the evidence
9 can support either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s conclusion, [a
10 court] may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ.”
11 Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006).
12
13 DISCUSSION
14
15 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to provide adequate
16 reasons for rejecting his testimony and statements suggesting
17 greater limitations than those in the ALJ’s RFC assessment. (Pl.
18 Brief at 4-15). After consideration of the record as a whole, the
19 Court finds no reason to remand this matter. The ALJ’s reasoning
20 in this case is adequate, and the Court discerns no material error.4
21
22
23
24
25
4 The harmless error rule applies to the review of
26 administrative decisions regarding disability. See McLeod v.
Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 886-88 (9th Cir. 2011); Burch v. Barnhart,
27 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (An ALJ’s decision will not be
reversed for errors that are harmless).
28
1 A. Summary of the Medical Record5
2
3 Plaintiff was diagnosed with granulomatosis with polyangiitis
4 (“GPA”) (formerly known as Wegener’s granulomatosis)6 in 2015, with
5 associated joint pain and swelling, eye inflammation, distal
6 extremity weakness/numbness from neuritis, pulmonary hemorrhage,
7 and possible cognitive impairment. (AR 421, 1072-87). Plaintiff’s
8 GPA improved with treatment. See, e.g., AR 424, 1151, 1157
9 (December 2018 note reporting Plaintiff’s GPA had been stable for
10 over a year on cellcept maintenance with primarily renal
11 involvement; his problems then included obesity with polycythemia,7
12

13 5 The lengthy record dates back to 2015, is largely
repetitive, and contains many pages of standard patient consent
14
forms. To put Plaintiff’s allegations in context, the Court’s
15 summary focuses primarily on the record beginning one year prior
to the alleged disability period at issue (i.e., starting in
16 September 2021).
17 6 GPA is rare disease that causes swelling/inflammation of
small blood vessels, mainly affecting vessels in the nose, sinuses,
18 throat, lungs, and kidneys, but it can affect any organ. GPA slows
blood flow to some organs. Affected tissues can develop inflamed
19
areas, or granulomas. Symptoms vary but may include fever, malaise,
20 weight loss, muscle aches/pain, joint stiffness, sinus infections,
earaches, shortness of breath, high blood pressure, leg swelling,
21 eye pain, blurry vision, nerve damage, skin rashes, and digestive
issues. See Granulomatosis with polyangiitis,
22 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/granulomatosis-
with-polyangiitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20351088 (last visited May
23
18, 2026); see also Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis,
24 https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/granulomatosis-
with-polyangiitis-formerly-wegeners-granulomatosis (last visited
25 May 18, 2026).
26 7 Polycythemia is a condition marked by abnormal increase
in the number of circulating red blood cells. See Polycythemia,
27 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polycythemia (last
visited May 18, 2026).
28
1 chronic hypertension, and non-adherence to medications); AR 1166
2 (May 2019 note reporting Plaintiff was asymptomatic); AR 1387 (June
3 2019 note reporting Plaintiff’s inflammatory markers were low and
4 Plaintiff had been asymptomatic aside from some altitude sickness
5 when working at high altitudes); AR 1393 (December 2019 note
6 reporting Plaintiff’s inflammatory markers were low and he was
7 asymptomatic); AR 423 (January 2020 note reporting Plaintiff was
8 stable). By April 2020, Plaintiff’s GPA with primarily pulmonary
9 involvement was “resolved.” (AR 422). He then had active nephritis,8
10 moderate sleep apnea for which he eventually was prescribed a CPAP
11 machine, and polycythemia. (AR 421-22).9
12
13 Plaintiff had a short hospital stay in August 2021 for COVID-
14 19 with mild shortness of breath and diabetic ketoacidosis, with
15 notes that Plaintiff had a history of type two diabetes and had
16 poor compliance with taking Metformin. (AR 312-401). In December
17 2021, Plaintiff was still on cellcept maintenance for GPA with
18
8 Nephritis is acute or chronic kidney inflammation. See
19
Nephritis, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nephritis
20 (last visited May 19, 2026).
21 9 Although Plaintiff’s GPA initially involved joint pain
and weakness, numbness, swelling in his extremities, and balance
22 issues (see, e.g., 1105, 1110, 1120, 1122, 1125, 1238, 1244, 1251,
1256, 1287, 1330 (early records noting same; some of which may be
23 duplicate records)), the treatment record does not reflect that
those conditions persisted after Plaintiff’s GPA improved.
24
Subsequent physical examinations note normal range of motion and
25 strength, no tenderness, no swelling, and/or normal gait. See,
e.g., AR 320, 326, 740, 1044, 1077, 1155, 1163, 1166, 1170, 1174,
26 1180, 1187, 1194, 1201, 1206, 1211, 1224, 1230, 1239, 1243, 1246,
1263-64, 1272, 1278, 1293, 1299, 1305, 1312, 1320, 1327, 1335,
27 1344, 1353, 1363, 1372, 1380, 1387, 1391 (later records; some of
which may be duplicate records)).
28
1 primarily renal involvement. (AR 557). He denied any vasculitic
2 symptoms and was feeling well and had lost 60 pounds. (AR 557). In
3 February 2022, Plaintiff was “doing better,” trying to make healthy
4 food choices and to exercise. (AR 587). Plaintiff had no shortness
5 of breath and no hemoptysis.10 (AR 587). His GPA was stable. (AR
6 588). Plaintiff’s continued polycythemia was likely from sleep
7 apnea. (AR 588). Plaintiff was not using his CPAP machine, which
8 his doctor recommended he use. (AR 588). In October 2022 (one month
9 after the disability period began), Plaintiff was still on cellcept
10 for GPA control, he denied any new symptoms and his existing
11 symptoms were stable, but he had uncontrolled diabetes and did not
12 check his blood sugar often. (AR 421, 728-30).
13
14 In February 2023, Plaintiff reported he was not doing well.
15 (AR 999). He was struggling with depression and unresolved trauma
16 from his underlying medical condition. (AR 999-1000). He had been
17 unable to get income, was told he did not qualify for disability
18 benefits and was appealing. (AR 999). He reportedly was adherent
19 with his oral medications but he did not want to take insulin and
20 had not been taking it, and his diet was almost exclusively
21 carbohydrates due to limited money. (AR 999-1000). His girlfriend
22 was supporting him. (AR 999). He continued to have polycythemia
23 from his obstructive sleep apnea due to not using his CPAP machine
24 and severe dehydration from uncontrolled diabetes. (AR 1000). He
25
26
10 Hemoptysis is the coughing up of blood. See Hemoptysis,
27 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hemoptysis (last
visited May 19, 2026).
28
1 did not want medication for his depression, only therapy. (AR
2 1000).
3
4 In March 2023, Plaintiff had markedly increased
5 erythrocytosis11 and polycythemia. (AR 880). His GPA appeared to be
6 in remission and his inflammatory markers were normal. (AR 883,
7 914). His “main problem” was polycythemia and uncontrolled
8 diabetes. (AR 883, 914). He had been off his CPAP machine for two
9 months due to life stressors, had not been able to sleep due to
10 ruminations and restless leg syndrome, and he wanted to “hold off”
11 from a mental health consultation until he got his “disability
12 figured out.” (AR 914). Plaintiff had missed three hematology
13 appointments and a renal appointment, and was advised to reschedule
14 those. (AR 914). He also was advised to check his blood sugar every
15 morning. (AR 915).
16
17 In May 2023, Plaintiff’s primary care physician, Dr. Mohamad
18 Raad, referred Plaintiff to the emergency department for potassium
19 and worsening kidney function with uncontrolled diabetes and
20 dehydration. (AR 848). Plaintiff had polycythemia secondary to
21 obstructive sleep apnea and significant dehydration from
22 hyperglycemia for which he again was advised to use his CPAP machine
23 and get glycemic control. (AR 849). His diabetes was uncontrolled
24 but he reportedly had been more adherent with medication and did
25

26 11 Similar to polycythemia, erythrocytosis is an increase
in the number of circulating red blood cells. See Erythrocytosis,
27 https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/erythrocytosis (last
visited May 19, 2026).
28
1 not want to start insulin. (AR 849). His GPA was stable. (AR 849).
2 Plaintiff reported that he had been doing well since his last
3 clinic visit. (AR 856). The emergency department gave Plaintiff an
4 IV solution to treat his hyperglycemia and discharged Plaintiff in
5 stable condition. (AR 1054-59).
6
7 In July 2023, Plaintiff had a hematology visit for his
8 polycythemia. (AR 816-17). He admittedly had stopped using his CPAP
9 machine a year earlier and reported he sometimes felt lightheaded.
10 (AR 816). He again was counseled on the importance of using his
11 CPAP machine because polycythemia is likely provoked by obstructive
12 sleep apnea, and was advised to ask his primary doctor for a more
13 comfortable mask for his machine. (AR 817). He was treated with a
14 therapeutic phlebotomy. (AR 777, 817).
15
16 In September 2023 and March 2024, Plaintiff continued to have
17 uncontrolled diabetes and was nonadherent with treatment. (AR 1753,
18 1798, 2113-15). A November 2023 nephrology note reported that
19 Plaintiff’s kidney function was stable and Plaintiff denied any
20 pain or discomfort and had no complaints. (AR 1914-15). He
21 continued to have issues with appointment attendance and medication
22 adherence. (AR 1914). He reportedly was trying to get disability
23 and was able to do all his activities of daily living. (AR 1915).
24 In December 2023, Plaintiff’s GPA appeared to be in remission. (AR
25 1840). He had no complaints – he felt well, denied symptoms, had
26 been off his CPAP machine, was missing doses of his medications,
27 had vacationed and did not take his cellcept for a few days, and
28 he was still using marijuana daily. (AR 1840). His “main problem”
1 again was polycythemia and uncontrolled diabetes. (AR 1840).
2 Plaintiff’s doctor discussed the importance of compliance with
3 medication, using Plaintiff’s CPAP machine, and checking blood
4 sugars. (AR 1841).
5
6 There are two mental health treatment notes: (1) an intake
7 note from May 2023, when Plaintiff reportedly was only interested
8 in medication treatment and was scheduled for a medication
9 evaluation in August, and (2) a follow up note for psychotherapy
10 from April 2024. (AR 1063-70).12 At his psychotherapy appointment,
11 which was less than three weeks before the administrative hearing,
12 Plaintiff reported that he was seeking services since he needed
13 medical records for his SSI claim, he was overwhelmed with stress
14 due to his SSI case, and he wanted to work on his post-traumatic
15 stress disorder (“PTSD”) in therapy. (AR 1063).
16
17 The Opinion Evidence
18
19 Consultative examiner Dr. Padma Bala provided an Independent
20 Internal Medicine Evaluation dated November 30, 2022. (AR 737-42).
21

22 12 A September 2023 primary care note reported irritability
and a depression screening score of four, and noted Plaintiff was
23 “pending SSI.” (AR 2113). Plaintiff reported he was receiving
mental health treatment but had to fill out new paperwork and had
24
stopped. (AR 2113). A March 2024 primary care note states that
25 Plaintiff was struggling with depression, using marijuana daily,
and was “semi-adherent” with his oral medications. (AR 1797).
26 Plaintiff was reluctant to follow up on resources and support, and
it was noted that he would benefit from a psychiatry referral if
27 he was amenable in the future. (AR 1798). Dr. Raad recommended
that Plaintiff stop using marijuana. (AR 1798).
28
1 Dr. Bala reviewed no medical records. (AR 740). Plaintiff
2 complained that uveitis caused him to not see very well. (AR 737).
3 He also complained of polyarthritis and muscle pain/spasms, kidney
4 pain, and shaking thigh muscles whenever he gets up. (AR 737-38).
5 He reportedly had been seeing a pain management doctor. (AR 738).13
6 He had worked as a plumber until June 2019. (AR 738). Mental status
7 examination showed Plaintiff was alert and oriented, in no acute
8 distress, and his memory appeared to be average. (AR 738). Physical
9 examination showed 20/20 vision with glasses, unsteady gait with a
10 weak appearance and Plaintiff walking slowly with a cane throughout
11 the visit, normal muscle tone, mass and strength, and otherwise
12 findings within normal limits. (AR 738-40).
13
14 Dr. Bala diagnosed autoimmune disorder, Wegener’s
15 granulomatosis, uveitis, polyarthritis, hematuria, muscle spasm,
16 and type two diabetes. (AR 740-41). Dr. Bala opined based on
17 objective findings Plaintiff would be able to perform light work
18 with standing four hours a day because Plaintiff was “very weak”
19 with decreased walking tolerance, use of a cane for any long
20 distance walking, occasional postural activities and activities
21 requiring agility (e.g., walking on uneven terrain, climbing
22 ladders, or working at heights), occasional operation of heavy
23 equipment due to his weakness and unsteadiness when standing and
24
25
26

27 13 There are no pain management treatment notes in the
record.
28
1 walking, and with the ability to wear glasses all the time due to
2 his uveitis. (AR 741-42).
3
4 Consultative examiner Dr. Eric Kung provided a Mental
5 Evaluation by a Psychologist dated December 6, 2022. (AR 743-47).
6 Dr. Kung did not review any medical records. (AR 743). Plaintiff
7 complained of depression symptoms including poor memory and
8 concentration for which he had not been treated. (AR 743-44). He
9 admitted using THC daily. (AR 744). Plaintiff admitted he could
10 manage his self care and finances, needed some assistance with
11 household chores, running errands, shopping and cooking, enjoyed
12 playing video games, and could drive. (AR 745). Plaintiff’s posture
13 and gait were normal. (AR 743). On mental status examination,
14 Plaintiff had findings within normal limits except for euthymic
15 mood and the ability to recall only two out of three items after
16 five minutes. (AR 745-46). Plaintiff had mild difficulty
17 interacting with clinic staff and Dr. Kung. (AR 746). Dr. Kung
18 diagnosed major depressive disorder (moderate, recurrent), and
19 opined that Plaintiff would have none-to-mild limitations in areas
20 of functioning. (AR 746). Dr. Kung noted that if Plaintiff was in
21 treatment he would significantly approve. (AR 746).
22
23 Treating physician, Dr. Mohamad Raad, provided an Auto Immune
24 Disorder Medical Assessment Form dated March 7, 2023, indicating
25 limitations of disabling severity. (AR 748-52). Dr. Raad had
26 treated Plaintiff “daily” since March 2015 for GPA, polycythemia,
27 hemorrhagic cystitis, type two diabetes, and chronic kidney
28 disease. (AR 748). Plaintiff’s symptoms included moderate
1 pain/paresthesia, chronic sinusitis, yeast infections, headaches,
2 anxiety, disturbed sleep, renal involvement, nausea/vomiting,
3 weight loss, depression, candida, neuropathy, and severe malaise.
4 (AR 748).
5
6 Dr. Raad opined that Plaintiff’s symptoms would interfere with
7 Plaintiff’s attention and concentration frequently, and Plaintiff
8 could not do various activities (i.e., he could not have public
9 contact, perform routine, repetitive tasks at a consistent pace,
10 perform detailed or complex tasks, meet strict deadlines, do fast-
11 paced tasks, or be exposed to work hazards). (AR 749). Dr. Raad
12 opined that Plaintiff: (1) could lift up to 10 pounds occasionally
13 and 20 pounds rarely; (2) could walk two blocks without rest or
14 pain, sit for one hour at a time before needing to walk or stand,
15 stand for one hour before needing to sit or lie down, and sit and
16 stand/walk for a total of two hours each in an eight-hour workday;
17 (3) would need restroom breaks eight times a day due to urinary
18 frequency/incontinence and other breaks eight times a day due to
19 weakness and chronic fatigue; (4) would need to rest two hours
20 during a workday; and (5) would have environmental restrictions.
21 (AR 749-52). Dr. Raad indicated Plaintiff would not need a cane or
22 assistive device and would miss more than four days of work per
23 month. (AR 751-52). Dr. Raad stated that due to Plaintiff’s
24 conditions he “has significant disability that prevents him from
25 being gainfully employed.” (AR 752).
26
27 Dr. Bala provided a second Independent Internal Medicine
28 Evaluation dated August 30, 2023. (AR 1041-46). Dr. Bala reviewed
1 Dr. Raad’s assessment form and her prior evaluation. (AR 1044-45).
2 Plaintiff reportedly thought his GPA was stable, but his hemoglobin
3 A1c was 10, he had severe pain, he could not move “that much,” and
4 had joint swelling, decreased appetite, decreased weight and
5 depression. (AR 1042). Mental and physical examinations were
6 unchanged from Dr. Bala’s prior evaluation, except that Plaintiff
7 ambulated with a normal gait, looked “kind of weak” and “very
8 skinny,” and had 20/30 vision with glasses. (AR 1042-44).
9
10 Dr. Bala diagnosed Wegener’s granulomatosis, uveitis,
11 rheumatoid arthritis, polycythemia, hemorrhagic cystitis, type two
12 diabetes, high blood pressure, photosensitivity, autoimmune
13 disease, neuropathy, and chronic kidney disease. (AR 1045). Dr.
14 Bala opined based on objective findings that Plaintiff would be
15 able to perform light work with standing and walking six hours a
16 day and no need for an assistive device, noting Plaintiff was able
17 to walk normally, and occasional activities requiring agility
18 (e.g., walking on uneven terrain, climbing ladders, or working at
19 heights) due to a general “appearance of weakness,” and no other
20 restrictions. (AR 1045-46).
21
22 Consultative examiner Dr. Kara Cross provided a Comprehensive
23 Psychological Evaluation/Complete Mental Status Evaluation dated
24 August 30, 2023. (AR 1047-51). She reviewed Dr. Kung’s December 6,
25 2022 mental evaluation. (AR 743-47, 1047). Plaintiff complained of
26 depression, anxiety, memory issues, irritability, moodiness,
27 stress, anger, worry, paranoia, frustration, confusion, panic,
28 distrust, social anxiety, PTSD (but he did not report a situation
1 or circumstance that qualified as PTSD), and reported that he used
2 a cane (which he did not bring or use at this visit). (AR 1047-
3 48). Dr. Cross observed Plaintiff to have a major depressive
4 disorder, slow processing, and “vegetative signs.” (AR 1047).
5 Plaintiff admitted that he could attend to his personal care,
6 drive, pay bills/handle cash, watch television, pick up around the
7 house, run errands, use a microwave, use a smartphone, read, use a
8 computer, and do art. (AR 1048). He is not always able to go out
9 alone, is not always able to focus attention, has some difficulty
10 completing household tasks, but no difficulty making decisions.
11 (AR 1048). On mental status examination, Plaintiff had adequate
12 attention and concentration, was slow to process, had a flat and
13 anxious mood, could recall only one of three words after five
14 minutes, and could not spell “world” backward. (AR 1049-50).
15
16 Dr. Cross diagnosed anxiety disorder (unspecified). (AR 1050).
17 She opined that Plaintiff would have none-to-marked limitations,
18 i.e., he would have (1) no limitations in understanding, mild
19 limitations in remembering, and moderate limitations in carrying
20 out simple one- or two-step task instructions over time for a 40-
21 hour work week without emotionally decompensating; (2) mild
22 limitations in “doing” detailed and complex tasks, but he also
23 would have no limitations in understanding, mild limitations in
24 remembering, and marked limitations in doing detailed and complex
25 tasks over time for a 40-hour week without emotionally
26 decompensating; (3) mild limitations in his ability to maintain
27 concentration and attention; (4) moderate limitations in his
28 ability to maintain reasonable persistence and pace, and in his
1 ability to maintain regular attendance and perform simple slow-
2 paced tasks on a consistent basis, and marked limitations in his
3 ability to do the same for complex or timed tasks; and (5) moderate
4 limitations in his ability to relate to coworkers and marked
5 limitations in his ability to relate to the public. (AR 1050-51).
6
7 A state agency physician reviewed the record in December 2022,
8 and opined that Plaintiff would be capable of light work with
9 occasional postural limitations, use of a cane recommended for long
10 distance ambulation, and avoiding even moderate exposure to fumes,
11 odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation, etc. given Plaintiff’s
12 granulomatosis with pulmonary symptoms. See AR 88-104 (finding “not
13 persuasive” Dr. Bala’s November 2022 opinion, and “persuasive” Dr.
14 Kung’s opinion, and finding “nonsevere” Plaintiff’s mental
15 impairments). Or reconsideration in September 2023, another state
16 agency physician agreed with the findings on initial review, but
17 did not include a cane recommendation. See AR 105-13 (finding
18 “persuasive” Dr. Bala’s opinion August 2023 opinion, “less
19 persuasive” Dr. Raad’s opinion as unsupported by other evidence,
20 and not persuasive Dr. Cross’s opinion given Plaintiff’s failure
21 to seek mental health treatment).
22
23 B. The ALJ’s Gave Adequate Reasons for Discounting Plaintiff’s
24 Testimony and Statements Suggesting Greater RFC Limits
25
26 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in determining his RFC by
27 failing to give adequate reasons for discounting his testimony and
28 statements suggesting greater limitations than the ALJ found. He
1 suggests that the ALJ did not specify how the record undermined
2 Plaintiff’s alleged limitations, and improperly relied on his
3 activities of daily living which were not inconsistent with his
4 testimony or statements. (Pl. Brief at 4-15 (citing, inter alia,
5 Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir. 2015)).
6 Defendant counters that the ALJ pointed to specific inconsistencies
7 between Plaintiff’s allegations and the record to support the ALJ’s
8 decision. (Def. Brief at 2-6).
9
10 As explained below, the Court finds the ALJ’s decision in this
11 case was legally sufficient.
12
13 1. Plaintiff’s Statements
14
15 At the hearing in April 2024, Plaintiff testified that he was
16 getting treatment for anxiety, PTSD, and depression, and these
17 conditions cause him to get distracted and ruminate over past
18 traumatic events and his physical problems. (AR 43, 45-46).14
19 Plaintiff said his autoimmune disorder “heavily affects” his life
20 — it had caused nerve damage in his hands, legs, and feet, a pulsing
21 feeling in his back, vision sensitivity to light when his condition
22 flares, lightheadedness, dizziness, and discomfort/pain. (AR 43-
23 45). He said he could walk for about 30 minutes before he starts
24 to have pain/pulsing feeling in his back and must lean on something,
25 sit down, or take a breather for a “couple” minutes. (AR 46-47).
26
14 As detailed above, although Plaintiff had been referred
27 for treatment earlier, he had just sought regular treatment that
month.
28
1 He could sit for 30 minutes before he feels wobbly and unstable on
2 his legs when he stands. (AR 47). He could focus on a task for
3 about eight minutes or more before he starts to zone out. (AR 48).
4 He struggles to track conversations and is “basically uncomfortable
5 around people.” (AR 49).
6
7 Plaintiff said on a typical day he takes his time getting up
8 and leans on something until his legs are not wobbly or unstable,
9 takes care of his personal hygiene, makes his meals, and
10 straightens up his home and does other “simple things” around the
11 house for up to 45 minutes at a time before he must take a break.
12 (AR 49-51). He was living with his dad, brother, grandmother, and
13 siblings. (AR 51-52). He said he could grocery shop once every
14 other week for an hour with someone but he did not do much of the
15 shopping. (AR 52). He could also drive. (AR 52). He said his
16 medications cause him to have diarrhea, nausea, drowsiness, body
17 aches, and lightheadedness. (AR 53). He could lift a 24-pack of
18 water and said his lifting was “fine.” (AR 54).
19
20 In an Exertion Questionnaire, Plaintiff reported that he has
21 headaches, weakness, depression, kidney irritation, bleeding gums,
22 fatigue, muscle spasms, and photosensitivity, and his medications
23 cause dizziness, diarrhea, pain, and lightheadedness. (AR 244). He
24 could do chores but he loses focus, has difficulty bending down
25 and getting up, frequently loses his balance, and has fatigue. (AR
26 244). He estimated that he could walk a half mile in about 15
27 minutes before his chest/sides become irritated, he could lift up
28 to 40 pounds, grocery shop once a week, do dishes in 45 minutes
1 with a break from standing, drive for about an hour before fatigue
2 if the sun is out, and do yard work but bending down causes him
3 lightheadedness and dizziness. (AR 244-45). When he does chores,
4 he is slow, distracted, and irritated, and he can do them for about
5 25 minutes before he starts to have back/side pain, leg muscle
6 spasms, and overthinking. (AR 246). He uses a cane for extended
7 walking and to assist himself in getting out of cars. (AR 246).
8
9 In a Disability Report – Appeal form, Plaintiff reported he
10 has constant pain, especially in his kidney area, is unable to sit,
11 stand, or walk for long periods of time, is unable to stand outside
12 in the sunlight for long periods of time, has light sensitivity,
13 and uses a walking stick to move around. (AR 255). He also has
14 difficulty concentrating and paces around his house. (AR 255).
15
16 In a Function Report form, Plaintiff reported that his ability
17 to work is limited by back and leg pain, loss of balance sometimes
18 requiring that he use a cane, social anxiety, photosensitivity,
19 fatigue, weakness, infections due to being on immunosuppressant
20 drugs, and lost concentration. (AR 258). He reported that he could
21 do his own personal care, chores, and errands with breaks if needed
22 until his side effects occur. (AR 259). He could prepare frozen
23 food and occasionally prepare complete meals, do laundry, cleaning,
24 and cooking, taking 3-4 hours depending on the task, go out 3-4
25 times a week to run errands, and grocery shop 2-3 times a week for
26 around two hours. (AR 260-61). His hobbies included video games,
27 crafts, television, movies, and YouTube, which he did “very often,”
28 and occasional gardening. (AR 262). He reported social anxiety and
1 difficulty speaking. (AR 262). He checked that his conditions
2 affect his lifting, squatting, bending, standing, walking,
3 kneeling, talking, seeing, memory, completing tasks,
4 concentration, and understanding, and estimated that he could lift
5 up to 40 pounds, and has some difficulties following written and
6 spoken instructions. (AR 263).
7
8 2. Applicable Law
9
10 When assessing a claimant’s credibility regarding subjective
11 pain or intensity of symptoms, the ALJ must engage in a two-step
12 analysis. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017).
13 First, the ALJ must determine if there is medical evidence of an
14 impairment that could reasonably produce the symptoms alleged.
15 Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014. “In this analysis, the claimant is not
16 required to show that her impairment could reasonably be expected
17 to cause the severity of the symptom she has alleged; she need only
18 show that it could reasonably have caused some degree of the
19 symptom.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). “Nor must
20 a claimant produce objective medical evidence of the pain or
21 fatigue itself, or the severity thereof.” Id. (citation omitted).
22
23 If the claimant satisfies this first step, and there is no
24 evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide specific, clear and
25 convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony about
26 the symptom severity. Id. at 1014-15; see also Robbins, 466 F.3d
27 at 883 (“[U]nless an ALJ makes a finding of malingering based on
28 affirmative evidence thereof, he or she may only find an applicant
1 not credible by making specific findings as to credibility and
2 stating clear and convincing reasons for each.”). “This is not an
3 easy requirement to meet: The clear and convincing standard is the
4 most demanding required in Social Security cases.” Garrison, 759
5 F.3d at 1015 (citation omitted). The ALJ must evaluate “the
6 intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent
7 to which the symptoms limit [the claimant’s] ability to perform
8 work-related activities for an adult.” Soc. Sec. Ruling (“SSR”)
9 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3.
10
11 While the ALJ cannot “delve into wide-ranging scrutiny of the
12 claimant’s character and apparent truthfulness,” Trevizo, 871 F.3d
13 at 678 n.5, the ALJ may consider “prior inconsistent statements
14 concerning the symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that
15 appears less than candid; unexplained or inadequately explained
16 failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course of
17 treatment; and the claimant’s daily activities.” Ghanim v. Colvin,
18 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
19 Inconsistencies between a claimant’s testimony and conduct, or
20 internal contradictions in the claimant’s testimony, also may be
21 relevant. Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2014).
22
23 In addition, the ALJ may consider the observations of treating
24 and examining physicians regarding, among other matters, the
25 functional restrictions caused by the claimant’s symptoms. Smolen
26 v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996); accord Burrell, 775
27 F.3d at 1137. However, it is improper for an ALJ to reject
28 subjective testimony based “solely on a lack of objective medical
1 evidence to fully corroborate the claimant’s allegations.” Bray v.
2 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009)
3 (citation omitted); see also Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 498
4 (9th Cir. 2022) (reaffirming same but observing that inconsistency
5 with the medical evidence is a factor that can be considered; “When
6 objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with the
7 claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may indeed weigh it as
8 undercutting such testimony.”) (emphasis original); SSR 16-3p, 2017
9 WL 5180304, at *5 (“Objective medical evidence is a useful
10 indicator to help make reasonable conclusions about the intensity
11 and persistence of symptoms, including the effects those symptoms
12 may have on the ability to perform work-related activities. . .”).
13
14 The ALJ must make a credibility determination with findings
15 that are “sufficiently specific to permit the court to conclude
16 that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discredit claimant’s testimony.”
17 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation
18 omitted); see Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d at 493 (“A finding
19 that a claimant’s testimony is not credible must be sufficiently
20 specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude the adjudicator
21 rejected the claimant’s testimony on permissible grounds and did
22 not arbitrarily discredit a claimant’s testimony regarding pain.”)
23 (citation omitted). Although an ALJ’s interpretation of a
24 claimant’s testimony may not be the only reasonable one, if it is
25 supported by substantial evidence, “it is not [the court’s] role
26 to second-guess it.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
27 Cir. 2001).
28
1 3. The ALJ’s Evaluation of Plaintiff’s Subjective
2 Statements
3
4 In determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff’s
5 testimony and acknowledged that the medical record supported “many”
6 of Plaintiff’s allegations. (AR 24-26). Regarding the record, the
7 ALJ observed: Plaintiff was diagnosed with GPA with neuropathy in
8 2015, which were controlled/resolved/in remission with low
9 inflammatory markers by 2019. (AR 25-26 (citing, e.g., AR 914,
10 1072, 1075, 1092-93, 1101, 1123, 1151, 1269, 1274, 1387)).
11 Plaintiff was noncompliant with diabetes medications, and had
12 hypertension and mild chronic kidney disease as complications. (AR
13 25 (citing, e.g., AR 1758, 1807, 1998)). Plaintiff had been
14 diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and polycythemia, but one
15 provider questioned Plaintiff’s medication compliance given that
16 Plaintiff’s polycythemia persisted after medication was
17 prescribed. (AR 25 (citing, e.g., AR 737, 1045, 1068, 1236, 1348)).
18 Plaintiff was morbidly obese in 2020 with a body mass index of
19 47.27, but had significant weight loss and had a body mass index
20 of 27.31 below the threshold for obesity in September 2023. (AR
21 25-26 (citing AR 1399, 2109)). The record supports these
22 observations.
23
24 The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable
25 impairments could reasonably be expected to cause many of his
26 alleged symptoms[,]” but his “statements concerning the intensity,
27 persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms” were “not
28
1 entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence
2 in the record.” (AR 26). The ALJ reasoned:
3
4 As for the claimant’s statements about the intensity,
5 persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms, there
6 are inconsistencies. For example, at [Dr. Bala’s November
7 2022] consultative examination, the claimant’s gait and
8 station were unsteady. He walked slowly and [was] using
9 his cane throughout the visit. He appeared weak. [AR 739-
10 40]. However, at a different visit [in August 2023], a
11 medical consultant [Dr. Bala] noted that muscle tone and
12 mass appeared normal, with no evidence of deformities,
13 swelling, or tenderness to direct palpation of any joint.
14 The range of motion of all extremities appeared normal.
15 The claimant had a normal gait and walked without any
16 type of assistive device. [AR 1043-44]. He told a
17 psychological consultant [Dr. Cross] that he can dress,
18 bathe, cook, watch TV, pick up around the house, run
19 errands, use a microwave, use a smart phone, read, and
20 use a computer. [AR 1048]. He drove himself to the
21 examination. [AR 1047]. There was no mention of any
22 difficulties walking or the need of a cane.
23
24 (AR 26-27).
25
26 Earlier in the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ discussed other
27 inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s allegations and the objective
28 medical record. The record supports the ALJ’s discussion. The ALJ
1 noted that while Plaintiff told Dr. Bala that his GPA resulted in
2 uveitis causing him to not see very well (AR 737; see also AR 1068
3 (note reporting uveitis and photo sensitivity)), (1) it appeared
4 his vision was corrected by glasses (AR 739, 741 (Dr. Bala stating
5 in her first evaluation that Plaintiff was required to wear his
6 glasses to work)), (2) at several medical appointments Plaintiff
7 denied uveitis symptoms (AR 729, 914, 1839 (all noting same from
8 single visit in October 2022)), and (3) Dr. Bala stated in her most
9 recent evaluation that Plaintiff has no visual restrictions (AR
10 1046 (noting no restrictions even though Plaintiff has uveitis)).
11 (AR 20).
12
13 The ALJ noted that while Plaintiff told Dr. Kung he had poor
14 memory (AR 743), medical sources said his memory appeared to be
15 average and/or unimpaired. See AR 21 (citing AR 738 (Dr. Bala’s
16 evaluation noting average memory); AR 1049 (Dr. Cross’s evaluation
17 noting Plaintiff was able to recall 3/3 words immediately and 1/3
18 after five minutes); AR 1267 (November 2019 note reporting normal
19 immediate and short-term memory); AR 1069 (April 2024 note
20 reporting unimpaired memory). Visit notes in 2015-2016 showed some
21 cognitive dysfunction (AR 1071-1727), but Plaintiff’s functioning
22 had improved “notably” with more recent findings of no cognitive
23 limitations. See AR 21 (citing AR 1799, 1842, 1917, 2039, 2115
24 (intake forms at visits in late 2023 and 2024 noting Plaintiff had
25 no cognitive barriers to learning)).
26
27 The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff said he sometimes is unable
28 to focus attention (AR 743, 1048), and when he was hospitalized
1 for GPA his attention was impaired (AR 1100), but Dr. Kung found
2 Plaintiff had no difficulties in focusing and maintaining
3 attention, or with concentration, persistence, and pace (AR 746),
4 and Dr. Cross found his concentration and attention was adequate
5 but mildly limited (AR 1049, 1051). (AR 21).
6
7 The ALJ reportedly accounted for Plaintiff’s symptoms by
8 limiting him to light work. (AR 26). The ALJ added pulmonary
9 limitations given Plaintiff’s polyangiitis, light restrictions
10 given Plaintiff’s photosensitivity, the ability to wear glasses
11 given his vision issues, and climbing restrictions given
12 Plaintiff’s testimony that he sometimes has dizziness or
13 lightheadedness. (AR 26). The ALJ found no cane was required for
14 ambulation given that records after the initial state agency review
15 showed no gait problems or need for a cane. (AR 27). The ALJ found
16 no mental limitations given Plaintiff’s lack of treatment for his
17 anxiety and depression until April 2024. (AR 27).
18
19 4. Analysis
20
21 The ALJ’s reasoning in this case is sufficiently specific for
22 the Court to determine that the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s
23 testimony and statements on permissible grounds. Brown-Hunter v.
24 Colvin, 806 F.3d at 493. The ALJ’s reasoning for discounting
25 Plaintiff’s GPA and GPA-related symptoms appears sufficient. The
26 ALJ could rely on the fact that Plaintiff’s GPA was stable or
27 controlled with medication or in remission long before the
28 disability period at issue. See AR 25; see also Warre v. Comm'r of
1 Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments
2 that can be controlled effectively with medication are not
3 disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI
4 benefits.”). As detailed above, the record since at least 2019 does
5 not repeat the symptoms or complaints Plaintiff had when he was
6 first diagnosed with GPA with neuropathy in 2015. The only
7 suggestion in the record that Plaintiff may have had the symptoms
8 he claimed since then was from Dr. Raad’s evaluation form, but Dr.
9 Raad did not comment on whether Plaintiff’s symptoms persisted
10 since Plaintiff’s GPA resolved. (AR 748-52).15
11
12 The ALJ’s reasoning for discounting Plaintiff’s limitations
13 from diabetes, polycythemia, and mental impairments is also
14 sufficient. As the ALJ observed (AR 25), Plaintiff had been
15 noncompliant with treatment for diabetes and polycythemia – he was
16 not checking his blood sugars regularly, was not taking insulin,
17 and was not using his CPAP machine. (AR 588, 816, 849, 914, 999,
18 1840). The ALJ found Plaintiff’s mental impairments were nonsevere
19 in part because Plaintiff did not seek regular mental health
20 treatment despite referrals until just before the administrative
21 hearing in this case. (AR 27). A failure to adhere to treatment
22 sometimes can justify rejecting a claimant’s subjective testimony,
23 at least where the testimony concerns physical problems. See, e.g.,
24 Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (in assessing
25
15 The form Dr. Raad completed contains a “dermatomes” chart
26 where Dr. Raad was asked to identify the location and frequency of
Plaintiff’s pain/paresthesia. Dr. Raad did not complete this
27 portion of the form despite reporting that Plaintiff’s symptoms
included neuropathy. (AR 748-49).
28
1 the credibility of a claimant’s pain testimony, the Administration
2 properly may consider the claimant’s failure to request treatment
3 and failure to follow treatment advice) (citing Bunnell v.
4 Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc)); Matthews
5 v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 679-80 (9th Cir. 1993) (permissible
6 credibility factors in assessing pain testimony include limited
7 treatment and minimal use of medications). However, the Ninth
8 Circuit has observed that “it is a questionable practice to
9 chastise one with a mental impairment for the exercise of poor
10 judgment in seeking rehabilitation.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d
11 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Nguyen”) (citations and quotations
12 omitted); see also Martinez v. Kijakazi, 2022 WL 7375569, at *2
13 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2022) (the ALJ erred in discounting claimant’s
14 allegations based on lack of treatment while failing to address
15 evidence that lack of treatment was itself due to the claimant’s
16 mental impairment); Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1018 n.24
17 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Nguyen); accord Pate-Fires v. Astrue, 564
18 F.3d 935, 945 (8th Cir. 2009) (“a mentally ill person’s
19 noncompliance with psychiatric medications can be, and usually is,
20 the result of the mental impairment itself and, therefore, neither
21 willful nor without a justifiable excuse”) (internal citations and
22 quotations omitted); Kangail v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 627, 630 (7th
23 Cir. 2006) (“mental illness in general. . . may prevent the sufferer
24 from taking prescribed medications or otherwise submitting to
25 treatment”) (internal citations omitted). As detailed above,
26 Plaintiff reported that he sought mental health treatment to
27 support his SSI claim. (AR 1063). On this record, the ALJ’s reliance
28 on Plaintiff’s failure to follow prescribed treatment for his
1 diabetes and polycythemia and failure to seek mental health
2 treatment to discount Plaintiff’s subjective statements was
3 proper.16
4
5 The ALJ’s general reasoning for discounting Plaintiff’s
6 statements suggesting greater limitations than the ALJ assessed
7 based on inconsistencies with the medical record is also adequate.
8 Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th at 498; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304,
9 at *5; see also Nadon v. Bisignano, 145 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir.
10 2025) (finding ALJ’s reasoning adequate for discounting claimant’s
11 testimony where the ALJ summarized the testimony and identified
12 inconsistencies; distinguishing Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d
13 at 493-94). As discussed above, the record supports the
14 inconsistencies the ALJ cited. The Court notes (as the ALJ noted
15 (AR 26-27)), Plaintiff presented to Dr. Bala with a cane and weak
16 appearance on November 30, 2022 (AR 738-40), and presented to Dr.
17 Kung with normal gait and posture without using a cane on December
18 6, 2022 (just a week later) (AR 743-45). Without any evidence in
19 the record to suggest that Plaintiff’s symptoms waxed and waned,
20 or to explain how his symptoms may or may not show up when his GPS
21 is considered “in remission,” there is no apparent explanation for
22 this discrepancy.
23
24
25

26 16 Even if Plaintiff’s noncompliance with treatment should
not have been considered given Plaintiff’s alleged mental
27 impairments, the ALJ’s remaining reasons for discounting
Plaintiff’s statements justify the ALJ’s decision.
28
1 The ALJ also appears to have relied on Plaintiff’s admitted
2 daily activities to discount his statements. An ALJ may rely on a
3 claimant’s daily activities in discounting symptom testimony. See
4 Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007) (daily activities
5 may be used to discount subjective complaints where the daily
6 activities “contradict [a claimant’s] other testimony” or “meet
7 the threshold for transferrable work skills”); see also Ghanim v.
8 Colvin, 763 F.3d at 1165 (“Engaging in daily activities that are
9 incompatible with the severity of symptoms alleged can support an
10 adverse credibility determination.”); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d
11 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998) (daily activities have bearing on a
12 claimant’s credibility where the “level of activity [is]
13 inconsistent with the Claimant’s claimed limitations”). Here, the
14 fact that Plaintiff admitted to Dr. Cross that he could drive,
15 dress, bathe, cook, watch TV, pick up around the house, run errands,
16 use a microwave, use a smart phone, read, and use a computer, and
17 was not using a cane at that appointment, may suggest that he was
18 not as limited as he alleged. See Valentine v. Comm’r, 574 F.3d
19 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009) (while daily activities did not suggest
20 Plaintiff could return to his prior work, they did suggest that
21 his “later claims about the severity of his limitations were
22 exaggerated”). The Court need not decide whether this reason was
23 adequate given the adequacy of the ALJ’s remaining reasons.
24 The infirmity of one or two stated reasons for an ALJ’s credibility
25 determination would not require this Court to overturn the ALJ’s
26 determination, since the ALJ stated other independently valid
27 reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s statements. See Carmickle v.
28 Comm'r, 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008).
1 The ALJ’s reasoning is sufficiently specific for the Court to
2 conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily discount Plaintiff’s
3 testimony. The ALJ adequately explained why the record did not
4 support Plaintiff’s claimed limitations. Compare Brown-Hunter, 806
5 F.3d at 491 (finding fault with ALJ’s conclusion that the
6 claimant’s limitations were less than alleged where the ALJ merely
7 summarized the medical record without explaining why it undermined
8 the claimant's allegations).
9
10 Because the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s testimony on legally
11 permissible grounds and the ALJ's reasoning is supported by
12 substantial evidence, the Court will defer to the ALJ’s
13 interpretation of the evidence. See Flaten v. Sec’y of Health &
14 Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1464 (9th Cir. 1995) (court will defer
15 to an ALJ's credibility determinations when they are appropriately
16 supported in the record by specific findings justifying the
17 decision).
18
19 ORDER
20
21 For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner
22 is affirmed.
23
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
24

25
Dated: June 1, 2026
26

27 ______________/s/____________
ALKA SAGAR
28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382754. Public record. Not legal advice.