Opinion

1

2 O

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 OSCAR A., Case No. 5:25-cv-03004-KES

12 Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION

13 v.

AND ORDER

14 FRANK BISIGNANO,

15 Commissioner of Social Security,

16 Defendant.

17

18 I.

19 INTRODUCTION

20 On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff Oscar A. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint

21 challenging the denial of social security disability benefits. (Dkt. 1.) On April 14,

22 2026, Plaintiff filed a Plaintiff’s Brief in accordance with Rule 6 of the

23 Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (“PB”

24 at Dkt. 13.) On June 15, 2026, Defendant Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of

25 Social Security (“Commissioner”), filed a responding Commissioner’s Brief under

26 Rule 7. (“CB” at Dkt. 16.) Plaintiff declined to file a Reply. (Dkt. 17.) For the

27 reasons stated below, the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is

28 AFFIRMED.

1 II.

2 BACKGROUND

3 In a decision from March 1993, Plaintiff was initially found disabled

4 beginning in January 1993 at age two. Administrative Record (“AR”) 22, 424.

5 Plaintiff subsequently had childhood disability reviews in February 1998 and

6 February 2002; both times, he continued on disability due to no evidence of

7 significant medical improvement. AR 22, 145-57. Plaintiff had three adult

8 disability reviews in January 2009, May 2006, and August 2019, at all of which he

9 again continued on disability due to lack of medical improvement. AR 22, 145-57.

10 On August 18, 2022, however, it was determined that Plaintiff was no longer

11 disabled as of August 1, 2022, at age 32. AR 22, 129-32. Thereafter, Plaintiff

12 requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). AR 158.

13 On August 14, 2024, Plaintiff appeared at the first administrative hearing

14 unrepresented by counsel. AR 73. The hearing was continued to allow him to

15 retain counsel. AR 76. On December 20, 2024, at the second administrative

16 hearing, Plaintiff appeared and testified with the assistance of a standby Spanish

17 interpreter. AR 45-70. A vocational expert (“VE”) also testified. AR 62-67.

18 On March 6, 2025, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. AR 16-44. The

19 ALJ began by identifying the August 9, 2019 decision (i.e., the most recent

20 favorable medical decision) as the “comparison point decision” or “CPD.” AR 24.

21 At the time of the CPD, Plaintiff had the severe medically determinable

22 impairments (“MDIs”) of asthma with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

23 (“COPD”). AR 24. This MDI was found to meet Listing 3.02. AR 24.

24 The ALJ found that since August 1, 2022, Plaintiff had the following MDIs:

25 “asthma; diabetes insipidus; right eye blindness; bilateral foot bunions; and

26 obesity.” AR 24. While Plaintiff still had asthma, the ALJ found that the

27 evidence showed a decrease in severity, such that Plaintiff’s respiratory disorders

28 no longer met or medically equaled Listing 3.02 as of August 1, 2022. AR 25.

1 The ALJ found that despite Plaintiff’s MDIs, he had the residual functional

2 capacity (“RFC”) to do light work with additional limitations. AR 27. Based on

3 the RFC findings, the VE’s testimony, and other evidence, the ALJ found that

4 Plaintiff could work as a cashier (Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”)

5 211.462-010), marker (DOT 209.587-034), and sales attendant (DOT 299.677-010)

6 (the “Alternative Jobs”). AR 37. The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was no longer

7 disabled as of August 1, 2022. AR 37-38.

8 III.

9 ISSUES PRESENTED

10 Issue One: Whether the ALJ erred by finding that Plaintiff’s breathing

11 impairments no longer satisfied Listing 3.02(A). (PB at 3.)

12 Issue Two: Whether the ALJ’s mental RFC findings lack substantial

13 evidentiary support. (PB at 8.)

14 Issue Three: Whether the ALJ erred in discounting Plaintiff’s subjective

15 symptom testimony.

16 IV.

17 DISCUSSION

18 A. ISSUE ONE: Listing 3.02(A).

19 1. Relevant Law.

20 The Social Security regulations include a listing of impairments (the

21 “Listings”) that are presumed severe enough to preclude a person from performing

22 gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180,

23 183-84 (9th Cir. 1990). At step three of the five-step sequential evaluation

24 process, the ALJ evaluates whether the claimant has an MDI or combination of

25 MDIs that meets or equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 20

26 C.F.R. Pt. 404 Subpt. P, App. 1. The Listings are organized by body system.

27 Listing 3.02 covers chronic respiratory disorders.

28 Each listed impairment is described in terms of “the objective medical and

1 other findings needed to satisfy the criteria of that listing.” 20 C.F.R.

2 § 404.1525(c)(3). “For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it

3 must meet all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only

4 some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v.

5 Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). If a claimant meets all the requirements of a

6 Listing, then the presumption of disability cannot be rebutted, and the ALJ must

7 find the claimant disabled without proceedings to steps four or five.

8 “A claimant may meet Listing 3.02 in four different ways: (1) A forced

9 expiratory volume in the first second of a forced expiratory maneuver value

10 (‘FEV1’) at or below the listing level based on age, gender, and height under

11 3.02(A); or (2) a forced vital capacity value (‘FVC’) at or below the listing level

12 for age, gender, and height under 3.02(B); or (3) a chronic impairment of gas

13 exchange demonstrated by a diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide

14 value (‘DLCO’) or other tests under 3.02(C); or (4) exacerbations or complications

15 requiring hospitalizations under 3.02(D).” James S. v. Saul, No. 4:20-CV-00027-

16 TMB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77117, 2021 WL 1587903, at *13 (D. Alaska Apr.

17 22, 2021).

18 2. Relevant Administrative Proceedings.

19 The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s breathing MDIs “have not met or medically

20 equaled a listing since August 1, 2022.” AR 24. The ALJ specifically considered

21 Listing 3.02. AR 24. The ALJ found, “The medical evidence of record since

22 August 2022 reflects no positive, objective physical, clinical, or diagnostic medical

23 findings that satisfy the criteria of Listing 3.02.” AR 25. Since August 1, 2022,

24 Plaintiff “presented for only limited and intermittent medical treatment of asthma.”

25 AR 30, citing recent treatment records. While he continued to refill his

26 prescription for an Albuterol inhaler, “physical examination reflected no positive,

27 objective pulmonary or respiratory medical findings.” AR 31, citing AR 909-10.

28 Physical examination findings showed that Plaintiff’s “lungs were clear to

1 auscultation bilaterally with no crackles or wheezing and he had normal excursion

2 with respirations at the lungs.” AR 31, citing AR 915-16 (November 2022

3 consultative examination) and AR 961-62 (November 2022 progress notes).

4 Plaintiff’s doctors consistently described his asthma as “mild intermittent asthma

5 without complication.” AR 29, citing records including AR 945, 949, 956, 994.

6 3. Analysis of Claimed Error.

7 First, Plaintiff contends that while “the medical evidence of record does not

8 contain a current pulmonary function test with a current FEV1 result, the record

9 still contains ongoing and significant evidence of a severe breathing impairment.”

10 (PB at 5.) Plaintiff cites evidence, acknowledged by the ALJ, that he continued to

11 refill his Albuterol inhaler after August 2022. (PB at 5-6, citing AR 909-910, 947,

12 953.) As discussed above, this is insufficient to show that Plaintiff’s respiratory

13 disorder met Listing 3.02(A) after August 2022.

14 Second, Plaintiff contends that state agency analyst M. A. Mazuryk, M.D.,

15 found medical improvement without considering Plaintiff’s asthma. (PB at 4,

16 citing AR 95.) The ALJ found this opinion “persuasive.” AR 34. But the ALJ did

17 not rely on Dr. Mazuryk’s opinion to find that Plaintiff’s asthma no longer satisfied

18 Listing 3.02(A). Rather, as discussed above, the ALJ relied on the lack of required

19 medical test results.

20 Third, Plaintiff faults the ALJ for not discussing medical evidence or

21 opinions from before August 2022. (PB at 5.) But the ALJ appropriately

22 considered whether evidence on or after August 1, 2022, showed that Plaintiff’s

23 asthma still satisfied Listing 3.02(A).

24 Finally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by not giving more credence to

25 subjective reports from Plaintiff and his family members about how quickly he

26 becomes out of breath. (PB at 6.) But satisfying Listing 3.02(A) requires objective

27 test results. Plaintiff has not shown that the ALJ erred by concluding that his

28 asthma no longer satisfied Listing 3.02(A) as of August 1, 2022.

1 B. ISSUE TWO: Plaintiff’s Mental RFC.

2 1. Relevant Administrative Proceedings.

3 In December 2022, Plaintiff underwent a psychological consultative

4 evaluation with LaQeishia Hagans, Ed.D. AR 921-24. Plaintiff complained of

5 difficulty concentrating and forgetfulness starting at age five or six after surgery to

6 remove a brain tumor. AR 921-22. He completed high school using special

7 education services.1 AR 922. His parents drove him to the appointment, and he

8 reported that he could not go places by himself. AR 921-22. He needed assistance

9 to dress himself and do household chores. AR 922. After administering some

10 basic tests involving math, spelling, abstract thinking, and memory, Dr. Hagans

11 diagnosed Plaintiff as suffering from an “unspecified neurocognitive disorder.”

12 AR 923. She found he had “mild” difficulties maintaining attention and pace but

13 no difficulty interacting with others. AR 923. She found Plaintiff would have

14 “mild” limitations performing simple work. AR 924.

15 In January 2023, K. Gregg, M.D., a State agency mental medical consultant

16 at the reconsideration level, determined that Plaintiff has no mental MDI. AR 926-

17 940. Dr. Gregg relied on Plaintiff’s recent IQ scores, the fact that he completed

18 high school, Dr. Hagans’s test results, and normal mental status examinations in

19 the treating records. AR 940.

20 The ALJ found the opinions of Drs. Hagans and Gregg persuasive. AR 27.

21 In the medical records, the ALJ saw “no positive, objective mental status findings

22 related to a neurocognitive disorder that supports more than mild functional mental

23

24 1 While he did not report this to Dr. Hagans, Plaintiff said he attended East

25 Los Angeles College for computer science from approximately 2010 to 2015. AR

411, 420-21. In a 2019 continuing disability review report, Plaintiff stated that he

26

was “currently attending computer application classes.” AR 371. He would ride a

27 bus, walk two blocks to school attend class from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., then take

the bus home. AR 372.

28

1 limitations due to this condition.” AR 27. Accordingly, the ALJ found that while

2 Plaintiff had the MDI of unspecified neurocognitive disorder, it was not severe,

3 because it “did not cause more than minimal limitation in [Plaintiff’s] ability to

4 perform basic mental work activities.” AR 26. The ALJ did not limit the

5 complexity of Plaintiff’s potential work in the RFC findings. AR 27.

6 2. Analysis of Claimed Error.

7 Plaintiff contends that he has greater mental functional limitations than those

8 for which the ALJ accounted in the RFC findings. (PB at 8.) As evidence, he cites

9 his own statements and those of his family, along with his history of brain surgery

10 and special education services. (PB at 8-12.) He also cites a medical source

11 statement from nurse practitioner Carmenita Arda. (PB at 10.) Plaintiff contends

12 that even if his neurocognitive disorder is non-severe, the ALJ needed to account

13 for the functional limitations it causes in crafting his RFC. (PB at 11-12.) He

14 suggests that the ALJ should have limited him against frequent “interactions with

15 the public.” (PB at 12.)

16 First, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s testimony (AR 28-32) and noted that the

17 opinions offered by Nurse Arda went to issues reserved to the Commissioner (AR

18 35). ALJs need not account for functional limitations that are supported solely by

19 discounted evidence. See Britton v. Colvin, 787 F.3d 1011, 1013-14 (9th Cir.

20 2015) (holding that where a claimant is not credible, an ALJ need not account for

21 limitations established only by a claimant’s self-report).

22 Second, at Plaintiff’s psychological consultation, Dr. Haggans found that

23 Plaintiff had no difficulty interacting with others. AR 923. Thus, there is

24 substantial evidentiary support for the ALJ’s decision not to restrict Plaintiff from

25 work that requires public contact.

26 Even if the ALJ should have limited Plaintiff to simple work because of

27 mental limitations, the failure to do so would be harmless error. The marker job

28 requires only Level 2 reasoning which is consistent with simple work. Zavalin v.

1 Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 843-44 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding conflict “between [the

2 claimant’s] limitation to simple, routine, or repetitive tasks, on the one hand, and

3 the demands of Level 3 reasoning, on the other hand.”). There are 167,000 marker

4 positions available nationally, which is an amply significant number. AR 37; see

5 Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 528-29 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding

6 that 25,000 jobs nationally is a significant number, but a “close call”).

7 C. ISSUE THREE: Plaintiff’s Subjective Symptom Testimony.

8 1. Relevant Law.

9 The ALJ engages in a two-step analysis to evaluate a claimant’s subjective

10 symptom testimony. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir.

11 2007). “First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented

12 objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment [that] could reasonably be

13 expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. at 1036. If so, the

14 ALJ may not reject a claimant’s testimony “simply because there is no showing

15 that the impairment can reasonably produce the degree of symptom alleged.”

16 Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996).

17 Second, if the claimant meets the first test, the ALJ may discredit the

18 claimant’s subjective symptom testimony only by making specific findings that

19 support the conclusion. Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010);

20 Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2014). Unless an ALJ finds that a

21 claimant is malingering or has failed to provide objective medical evidence in

22 support of his or her testimony, an ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons

23 for rejecting a claimant’s subjective testimony about the severity of experienced

24 symptoms. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488-89 (9th Cir. 2015). While

25 an ALJ’s findings must be properly supported and sufficiently specific to assure a

26 reviewing court that the ALJ did not “arbitrarily discredit” a claimant’s subjective

27 statements, an ALJ is not “required to believe every allegation” of disability. Fair

28 v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989).

1 The ALJ’s reasons for rejecting a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony

2 must be supported by substantial evidence. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664,

3 674 (9th Cir. 2017). “Substantial” means “more than a mere scintilla” but only

4 “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

5 conclusion.” Id.; Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) (quoting Consol.

6 Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). “Where evidence is susceptible

7 to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be

8 upheld.” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).

9 2. Relevant Administrative Proceedings.

10 The ALJ summarized Plaintiff’s testimony. AR 28-29. Plaintiff confirmed

11 that his inhaler was his only current treatment for breathing problems. AR 51. He

12 only used his inhaler when he was sick. AR 51. He had not used it for a week or

13 two and used it then because he had the flu. AR 51-52. He had trouble breathing

14 in cars because he felt the environment was “too tight or closed.” AR 51.

15 His left side was weaker than his right side, so he could “only stand with

16 [his] right leg.” AR 54. He was “fine” with walking, but if he tried to run, he felt

17 like throwing up after five minutes. AR 54. He could walk on a treadmill for

18 about 20 minutes. AR 55. He could play video games with friends and play ball

19 with his nephew. AR 58, 372.

20 The ALJ found that while Plaintiff’s MDIs “could reasonably be expected to

21 produce the alleged symptoms,” his “statements concerning the intensity,

22 persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with

23 the objective medical and other evidence ….” AR 30. As reasons, the ALJ cited

24 (1) inconsistency with the objective medical evidence; (2) inconsistency with

25 Plaintiff’s activities; and (3) the limited nature of his treatment.

26 3. Analysis of Claimed Error.

27 a. Reason One: Inconsistency with the Medical Evidence.

28 The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “statements about the alleged intensity,

1 persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are inconsistent with the objective

2 medical evidence and other evidence of record.” AR 30. After reviewing

3 Plaintiff’s recent treatment records for asthma, the ALJ concluded that “objective

4 medical evidence does not support the alleged severity of asthma-related

5 symptoms asserted by [Plaintiff].” AR 31. The ALJ also found that Plaintiff’s

6 alleged “difficulty standing due to left leg weakness” was “not supported by the

7 medical evidence of record.” AR 31. The ALJ cited the internal medicine

8 consultative examinations that found some decreased strength but concluded that

9 Plaintiff could stand or walk for six hours in an eight-hour day. AR 32. The ALJ

10 also found that Plaintiff’s “allegations of mental symptoms are not supported by

11 the objective medical evidence of record.” AR 32. The ALJ cited Plaintiff’s

12 scores on mental tests and lack of positive mental status findings. AR 32.

13 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not explain the findings of inconsistency

14 but only summarized the medical evidence. (PB at 13.) As set forth above,

15 however, the ALJ wrote separate paragraphs explaining which symptom testimony

16 was over-stated with citations to supporting evidence.

17 Plaintiff also argues that lack of supporting evidence cannot be the only

18 reason for discounting his subjective symptom testimony. (PB at 14.) But the ALJ

19 gave other reasons, as discussed below. Defendant identified those reasons (CB at

20 17-19), yet Plaintiff chose not to reply (Dkt. 17).

21 b. Reason Two: Inconsistency with Activities.

22 The ALJ wrote, “[D]espite [Plaintiff’s] allegations of weakness at the left

23 leg, he also testified he is able to walk, and he exercises at home, including

24 walking for about 20 minutes on a treadmill.” AR 32. Indeed, as the ALJ had

25 noted earlier, Plaintiff testified “he can only stand using the right leg because he

26 claimed his left leg is weak.” AR 28. The ALJ reasonably found this inconsistent

27 with his simultaneous testimony that he could walk “fine,” including walking for

28 20 minutes on a treadmill. AR 32, citing AR 54-55.

1 c. Reason Three: Limited Treatment.

2 The ALJ found that “the frequency or extent of treatment sought is not

3 | comparable to the degree of [Plaintiff's] subjective complaints related to ongoing

4 | breathing issues.” AR 31. The evidence showed that Plaintiff only presented for

5 | limited and intermittent treatment of his asthma. AR 30-31, citing AR 908-12.

6 || While he regularly refiled his Albuterol inhaler, there was no record of “treatment

7 | with a specialist, such as a pulmonologist.” AR 31. The ALJ further noted that

8 || Plaintiff only used the inhaler intermittently when sick and congested. AR 28-31,

9 | citing AR 51-52. The ALJ wrote, “The case record is ... devoid of evidence of

10 | persistent attempts to obtain relief of symptoms, such as increasing dosages and

11 | changing medications, trying a variety of treatments, referrals to specialists, or

12 | changing treatment sources. Nowhere in the record does [Plaintiff] offer a

13 | sufficient explanation for not seeking treatment consistent with the degree of

14 | subjective complaints.” AR 31.

15 This provides a clear and convincing reason supported by substantial

16 | evidence that Plaintiffs briefing does not address.

17 V.

18 CONCLUSION

19 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment shall be entered

20 | AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits.

21

22 as

53 | DATED: June 17, 2026 “Hous 6, Seat)

KAREN E. SCOTT

24 United States Magistrate Judge

25

26

27

28

11