Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

STEVEN REESE BARRETT,

9 Case No. 1:25-cv-00469-SKO

Plaintiff,

10

v. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL

11

SECURITY COMPLAINT

FRANK BISIGNANO,

12 Commissioner of Social Security,1

13 Defendant. (Doc. 1)

14 _____________________________________/

15

16

I. INTRODUCTION

17

18 Plaintiff Steven Reese Barrett (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the

19 Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying his application for

20 disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). (Doc. 1.) The matter

21 is currently before the Court on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted, without oral argument, to

22 the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, United States Magistrate Judge.2

23 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

24 On January 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a claim for DIB payments, alleging he became disabled

25

26 1 On May 6, 2025, Frank Bisignano was appointed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/#2025-05-07. He is therefore substituted as the defendant in this action.

27 See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (“the person holding the

Office of the Commissioner shall, in his official capacity, be the proper defendant”).

28 2 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (See Doc. 7.) On July 10, 2026, this case was

1 on May 2, 2018, due to major depressive disorder, recurrent episode; generalized anxiety disorder;

2 right shoulder injury; and type 2 diabetes. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 15, 203, 211, 252, 268,

3 970, 1112–18.)

4 Plaintiff was born in 1962 and was 55 years old on the alleged onset date. (AR 39, 211, 252,

5 268, 888, 969.) He has at least a high school education and has past work as a janitor and mechanic.

6 (AR 90, 108, 204, 888, 1169.)

7 A. Relevant Evidence of Record3

8 1. Medical Evidence

9 In August 2017, Plaintiff suffered an injury to his right shoulder and elbow while lifting a

10 200-to-300-pound lawn mower at work. (AR 425–28.) He was given an injection in his right

11 shoulder in February 2017. (AR 446.)

12 In May 2018, Plaintiff underwent right shoulder arthroscopic surgery. (AR 555–59.) He

13 was “feeling well” post-surgery and physical therapy was ordered. (AR 462.) That next month,

14 Plaintiff was “doing well” and attending physical therapy twice per week. (AR 465–66.)

15 Plaintiff attended a depression evaluation in October 2018. (AR 327–29.) He requested

16 medication for motion sickness for an upcoming trip, as he was going on a flight with his wife. (AR

17 328–29.) In January 2019, Plaintiff presented for a follow up appointment for his evaluation of his

18 right shoulder strain. (AR 487–90.) He reported that physical therapy is “helping decrease his

19 shoulder pain and increase his range of motion.” (AR 488.) He also reported that pain medication

20 decreased his pain. (AR 488.)

21 In October 2019, Plaintiff complained of “chronic” left shoulder pain that is “aggravated by

22 overhead type movement with hands.” (AR 662.) Plaintiff presented for treatment for anxiety,

23 depression, and substance abuse in December 2019. (AR 642–43.) He reported having started

24 fishing as a hobby. (AR 642.) Plaintiff attended a telehealth appointment to review medications

25 and discuss diabetes management in January 2020. (AR 637–39.) He reported plans to travel to

26 Texas later that month. (AR 638.)

27

28 3 Because the parties are familiar with the medical evidence, it is summarized here only to the extent relevant to the

1 Plaintiff presented for an evaluation of left shoulder pain that is “progressively worsening”

2 and “worse with overhead movements” in February 2021. (AR 578–80.) On examination, Plaintiff

3 had no redness, swelling, warmth, or tenderness, limited abduction and internal rotation and positive

4 Hawkin’s sign. (AR 579.) X-ray imaging noted normal alignment but “calcific tendinitis.” (AR

5 579–80.)

6 In March 2021, Plaintiff missed an appointment because he was watching his grandkids.

7 (AR 570–71.) An MRI of Plaintiff’s left shoulder performed that same month showed

8 “glenohumeral capsulitis,” and steroid injections were recommended. (AR 570.) Plaintiff could not

9 participate in a telehealth appointment because he was picking up his grandchildren from school in

10 May 2022. (AR 1303.)

11 Plaintiff reported in June 2022 that, later that month, he was having a “Celebration of Life”

12 for his son, who had passed away. (AR 1294.) He further reported that he belonged to a church and

13 spent time with fellow church members. (AR 1294.) That next month, Plaintiff reported “staying

14 busy with his grandkids.” (AR 1281.)

15 In September 2022, Plaintiff reported having traveled out of state to visit his son and family.

16 (AR 1757.) Plaintiff underwent a comprehensive internal medicine evaluation that next month. (AR

17 1881–85.) He reported bilateral shoulder pain bilaterally, worse on the left compared to the right.

18 (AR 1881.) He reported that he had surgery on the right shoulder in 2018 and it did “help some.”

19 (AR 1881.) Plaintiff also stated that he had injections in his left shoulder that helped for “4-6 months

20 at a time.” (AR 1881.) Regarding activities of daily living, he reported he cooks, cleans, drives,

21 shops, performs his own activities of daily living without assistance, and walks some for exercise.

22 (AR 1882.)

23 On examination, Plaintiff was able to easily get up out of his chair in the waiting room and

24 walk at a normal speed back to the exam room without assistance. (AR 1882.) He sat comfortably

25 and was easily able to get on and off the exam table. (AR 1882.) He was easily able to bend over

26 at the waist and take off his shoes and socks and put them back on, “demonstrating good dexterity

27 and good flexibility.” (AR 1882.) His extremities were warm without cyanosis, clubbing, or edema.

28 (AR 1883.) Plaintiff was able to walk several steps on his toes and heels. (AR 1883.) He had a

1 normal station, normal gait, and normal finger-to-nose testing. (AR 1883.) Romberg test showed

2 “some positivity.” (AR 1883.) Plaintiff had full range of motion in his cervical and lumbar regions.

3 (AR 1883.) He had reduced range of motion in his shoulders. (AR 1884.) His straight leg raise

4 testing was negative. (AR 1884.) Plaintiff’s motor strength was normal (5/5) in the bilateral upper

5 and lower extremities, including grip strength. (AR 1884.) He had normal bulk and tone; and no

6 atrophy was noted. (AR 1884.) The sensory exam was grossly intact throughout the bilateral upper

7 and lower extremities, and his deep tendon reflexes were 1+ in the bilateral upper and lower

8 extremities. (AR 1884.) The examiner diagnosed Plaintiff with shoulder pain, noting his range of

9 motion was “decreased” but his strength was “good.” (AR 1884.)

10 Plaintiff reported being “active with his grandkids” in November 2022. (AR 2589.) He was

11 also attending a weekly church support group. (AR 2589.) That next month, Plaintiff reported

12 fishing with his grandson and visiting his mother every other weekend. (AR 2583.) He planned to

13 resume woodworking and attend his church support group. (AR 2583.)

14 In October 2023, Plaintiff expressed a wish to proceed with surgery on his left shoulder to

15 repair a rotator cuff tear. (AR 3874.) Later that month, he was evaluated by an orthopedic surgeon.

16 (AR 3908–15.) On examination, Plaintiff was in no acute distress. (AR 3913.) His left shoulder

17 demonstrated normal contour, and no atrophy. (AR 3913.) In active range of motion and strength

18 testing, he had normal findings. (AR 3913.) Plaintiff’s pulses were normal. (AR 3913.) In special

19 testing, Hawkin’s and Neer’s tests were positive. (AR 3913.) The surgeon recommended

20 medications, steroid injections, and therapy, and planned surgery for January 2024. (AR 3914–15.)

21 2. Plaintiff’s Statement

22 In March 2019, Plaintiff completed a function report. (AR 230–237.) He noted he was

23 independent in personal care activities and many activities of daily living, including preparing simple

24 meals, and doing household chores such as vacuuming, laundry and loading/unloading the

25 dishwasher. (AR 231–32.) Plaintiff also reported he was able to drive a car, shop in stores for

26 groceries, manage his finances, and go to church twice per week. (AR 234.)

27 B. Administrative Proceedings

28 The Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s application for benefits initially on April 17, 2019, and

1 again on reconsideration on June 20, 2019. (AR 15, 111–15, 119–24, 863.) Following a hearing

2 held March 25, 2021 (AR 32–73), an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a written decision on

3 May 20, 2021, finding Plaintiff not disabled. (AR 19–35.) Plaintiff appealed the decision to the

4 district court. (AR 960–62.) The parties thereafter voluntarily remanded the case for further

5 proceedings. (AR 964–65.) On remand, the Appeals Council directed the assigned ALJ to conduct

6 a de novo hearing, to take any further action needed to complete the record, and to issue a new

7 written decision.4 (AR 997–1000.)

8 At a second hearing held on September 18, 2023 (AR 898–938), Plaintiff appeared via

9 teleconference with counsel and testified before an ALJ as to his alleged disabling conditions and

10 work history. (AR 906–25.) A vocational expert (VE) also testified at the hearing. (AR 925–37.)

11 1. Plaintiff’s Testimony

12 At the first hearing in 2021, Plaintiff testified that after his right shoulder arthroscopic

13 surgery, he continued to experience problems with range of motion, particularly moving his arm out

14 and back. (AR 45.) He also had problems with the left shoulder, with painful movement in all

15 directions. (AR 46–47.) As a result, Plaintiff noted he could not lift more than 20 pounds (AR 47)

16 and could no longer mow the lawn (AR 50). He testified that he did not take any pain medications,

17 except for about a week after his shoulder surgery. (AR 50–51.) According to Plaintiff, his self-

18 employment income in 2018 was from taking care of an elderly couple and involved lifting and

19 transferring a person weighing 160 pounds. (AR 43.) He reported that he drove (AR 49), and

20 watched his grandchildren (AR 60–62), including changing diapers for his two-year-old

21 granddaughter. (AR 61–62.) Plaintiff testified that he traveled by airplane to Texas (AR 66),

22 performed home exercises (AR 65), rewired the back of a TV (AR 62), and went fishing (AR 66).

23 At the second hearing in 2023, Plaintiff reiterated that he continues to have limitations related

24 to his right dominant shoulder, including reaching overhead and taking care of some of his personal

25 needs, such as reaching while showering. (AR 910.) Plaintiff testified that he also has pain in his

26 left shoulder and may need surgery on it in the future. (AR 911.) He was treated with cortisone

27

28 4 The Appeals Council also noted that Plaintiff filed a subsequent claim for DIB on June 26, 2022, which was deemed

1 injections and home exercises. (AR 911.) According to Plaintiff, he can lift around 20-25 pounds

2 but needs help with heavier items. (AR 917.) Plaintiff testified he can only sit, stand and walk for

3 short periods. (AR 916–17.)

4 2. Vocational Expert’s Testimony

5 The VE testified that Plaintiff had past relevant work as: a commercial or institutional

6 cleaner, Dictionary of Operational Titles (“DOT”) code 381.687-014, with a heavy exertional level

7 and a specific vocational preparation (SVP)5 of 2; as a small engine mechanic, DOT code 625.281-

8 034, SVP 6, medium exertional level (heavy as performed); and a composite job of tire repairer,

9 DOT code 915.684-010, SVP 3, heavy exertional level, and front end mechanic, 620.281-038, SVP

10 6, medium exertional level. (AR 926–28.)

11 The ALJ asked the VE to consider a person of Plaintiff’s age, education, and work

12 experience. (AR 928.) The VE was also to assume this person can perform work at the medium

13 level of exertion (including the ability to lift and/or carry 25 pounds frequently and 50 pounds

14 occasionally); can occasionally crawl and climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; can occasionally reach

15 overhead with the bilateral upper extremities; can understand, remember and carry out simple tasks

16 that can be learned and mastered in up to 30 days’ time or less; can maintain concentration,

17 persistence, or pace throughout a normal workday or work week; can make simple work-related

18 decisions; can plan and set goals; can adapt to routine workplace changes and travel; and can

19 recognize and avoid ordinary workplace hazards. (AR 928–29.) The VE testified that such a person

20 could not perform Plaintiff’s past work but could perform other medium exertional jobs in the

21 national economy such as hand packager, DOT code 920.587-018, with an SVP of 2; bagger, DOT

22 code 920.687-014, with an SVP of 2; and coffee maker, DOT code 317.684-010, with an SVP of 2.

23 (AR 929.) The VE further testified that those jobs would remain even when adding the limitations

24 of frequently balance, stoop, kneel and crouch and never working at unprotected heights or operate

25 heavy machinery. (AR 929.)

26

5 Specific vocational preparation, as defined in DOT, App. C, is the amount of lapsed time required by a typical worker

27 to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a specific

job-worker situation. DOT, Appendix C – Components of the Definition Trailer, 1991 WL 688702 (1991). Jobs in

28 the DOT are assigned SVP levels ranging from 1 (the lowest level – “short demonstration only”) to 9 (the highest level

1 Plaintiff’s attorney asked the VE whether the identified jobs are done while sitting. (AR

2 935–36.) The VE responded, “Occasionally, they’ll be some sitting, but those jobs are done

3 primarily on one’s feet throughout the day with the exception of a normal break.” (AR 936.) The

4 VE further testified that if the hypothetical person was limited to “up to six hours” of standing, they

5 could perform the medium jobs identified. (AR 936.)

6 C. The ALJ’s Decision

7 In a decision dated May 31, 2024, the ALJ once again found that Plaintiff was not disabled,

8 as defined by the Act. (AR 863–89.) The ALJ conducted the five-step disability analysis set forth

9 in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. (AR 866–89.) The ALJ decided that Plaintiff met the insured status

10 requirements of the Act through March 31, 2024, and he had not engaged in substantial gainful

11 activity during the period between May 2, 2018, the alleged onset date, through the date last insured

12 of March 31, 2024 (step one). (AR 866.) At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s following

13 impairments to be severe through the date last insured: right shoulder degenerative joint disease,

14 tendinosis, and partial thickness tear; left shoulder degenerative joint disease and partial rotator cuff

15 tear; major depressive disorder; generalized anxiety disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD);

16 and schizoaffective disorder. (AR 866–71.) The ALJ further found Plaintiff did not have an

17 impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed

18 impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“the Listings”) through the date last

19 insured (step three). (AR 871–73.)

20 The ALJ then assessed Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (RFC)6 and applied the

21 assessment at steps four and five. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (“Before we go from step three

22 to step four, we assess your residual functional capacity . . . . We use this residual functional capacity

23 assessment at both step four and step five when we evaluate your claim at these steps.”). The ALJ

24

25 6 RFC is an assessment of an individual’s ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work

setting on a regular and continuing basis of 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule. TITLES

26 II & XVI: ASSESSING RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY IN INITIAL CLAIMS, Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8P

(S.S.A. July 2, 1996). The RFC assessment considers only functional limitations and restrictions that result from an

27 individual’s medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments. Id. “In determining a claimant’s

RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record including, inter alia, medical records, lay evidence, and

28 ‘the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment.’”

1 determined that Plaintiff had the RFC through the date last insured:

2 to perform medium work, as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c), including the ability

to lift and/or carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently. He can

3

occasionally crawl. He can occasionally climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. He

4 can occasionally reach overhead with the bilateral upper extremities. He can

understand, remember, and carry out simple tasks that can be learned and mastered

5 in up to 30 days’ time or less. At such levels, can maintain concentration,

persistence, and pace throughout a normal workday and workweek, make simple

6

work-related decisions, plan, and set goals, adapt to routine workplace changes,

travel, and recognize and avoid ordinary workplace hazards.

7

8 (AR 873–87.) Although the ALJ recognized that Plaintiff’s impairments “could reasonably be

9 expected to cause the alleged symptoms[,]” the ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s subjective testimony as “not

10 entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons

11 explained in [the] decision.” (AR 875.)

12 The ALJ determined that Plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work (step four) but,

13 given his RFC, he could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy (step five),

14 including hand packager, bagger, and coffee maker. (AR 887–89.) The ALJ concluded Plaintiff

15 was not disabled at any time from May 2, 2018, the alleged onset date, through March 31, 2024, the

16 date last insured. (AR 889.)

17 Because Plaintiff did not file exceptions, and the Appeals Council did not assume jurisdiction

18 on its own motion, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R §

19 404.984(d).

20 III. LEGAL STANDARD

21 A. Applicable Law

22 An individual is considered “disabled” for purposes of disability benefits if they are unable

23 “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or

24 mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected

25 to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). However,

26 “[a]n individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if [their] physical or mental

27 impairment or impairments are of such severity that [they] are not only unable to do [their] previous

28 work but cannot, considering [their] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind

1 of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” Id. § 423(d)(2)(A).

2 “The Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential process for determining

3 whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180

4 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). The Ninth Circuit has provided the

5 following description of the sequential evaluation analysis:

6

In step one, the ALJ determines whether a claimant is currently engaged in

7 substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the ALJ

proceeds to step two and evaluates whether the claimant has a medically severe

8 impairment or combination of impairments. If not, the claimant is not disabled. If

so, the ALJ proceeds to step three and considers whether the impairment or

9 combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. pt.

404, subpt. P, [a]pp. 1. If so, the claimant is automatically presumed disabled. If

10

not, the ALJ proceeds to step four and assesses whether the claimant is capable of

11 performing [their] past relevant work. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the

ALJ proceeds to step five and examines whether the claimant has the [RFC] . . . to

12 perform any other substantial gainful activity in the national economy. If so, the

claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled.

13

14 Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). “If a claimant is found to be ‘disabled’ or

15 ‘not disabled’ at any step in the sequence, there is no need to consider subsequent steps.” Tackett,

16 180 F.3d at 1098 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520).

17 “The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability in steps one through four of

18 the analysis.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 679 (citing Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989)).

19 “However, if a claimant establishes an inability to continue [their] past work, the burden shifts to

20 the Commissioner in step five to show that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work.”

21 Id. (citing Swenson, 876 F.2d at 687).

22 B. Scope of Review

23 “This court may set aside the Commissioner’s denial of [social security] benefits [only] when

24 the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record

25 as a whole.” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1097 (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence . . . is ‘more than

26 a mere scintilla,’” and means only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

27 adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (quoting

28 Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). See also Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154

1 (9th Cir. 2020).

2 “This is a highly deferential standard of review . . . .” Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

3 Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009). “The ALJ’s findings will be upheld if supported by

4 inferences reasonably drawn from the record.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.

5 2008) (citation omitted). Additionally, “[t]he court will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when the

6 evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Id.; see, e.g., Edlund v. Massanari,

7 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational

8 interpretation, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner.”) (citations

9 omitted)).

10 Nonetheless, “the Commissioner’s decision ‘cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a

11 specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Sousa v. Callahan,

12 143 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Rather, a court must ‘consider the record as a whole,

13 weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the [Commissioner’s]

14 conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1993)).

15 Finally, courts “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error that is harmless.”

16 Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,

17 454 F.3d 1050, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2006)). Harmless error “exists when it is clear from the record

18 that ‘the ALJ’s error was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.’” Tommasetti,

19 533 F.3d at 1038 (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[T]he

20 burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s

21 determination.” Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) (citations omitted).

22 IV. DISCUSSION

23 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred at step five by relying on “contradictory” testimony by

24 the VE and failed to articulate clear and convincing reasons for discounting his testimony regarding

25 his subjective complaints. (Docs. 11, 14.) The Commissioner responds that substantial evidence

26 supports the ALJ’s step five findings and the ALJ properly relied on evidence in the record that

27 undermined the credibility of Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms and limitations. (Doc.

28 13.) The Court finds no harmful error in the ALJ’s decision and will affirm.

1

2 At step five of the sequential evaluation, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to

3 identify representative jobs that a claimant can perform given his age, education, work experience,

4 and RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). The ALJ may rely on vocational expert testimony regarding

5 “(1) what jobs the claimant, given his or her [RFC], would be able to do; and (2) the availability of

6 such jobs in the national economy.” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1101. For the testimony of a VE to be

7 considered reliable, the questioning of the VE “must include ‘all of the claimant’s functional

8 limitations, both physical and mental’ supported by the record.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947,

9 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). If a claimant can perform other work, they are not disabled.

10 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

11 Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the

12 national economy. In so finding, the ALJ relied upon VE testimony at Plaintiff’s second hearing,

13 which addressed the limitations that the ALJ included in Plaintiff’s RFC. (AR 873–74 (RFC); AR

14 928–29 (VE testimony).) At that hearing, the VE testified that a worker with Plaintiff’s RFC could

15 perform medium work occupations including hand packager, bagger, and coffee maker. (AR 929.)

16 The VE also provided the numbers of such occupations in the national economy. (AR 929.) Because

17 the “hypothetical that the ALJ posed to the VE contained all of the limitations that the ALJ found

18 credible and supported by substantial evidence in the record,” the “ALJ’s reliance on testimony the

19 VE gave in response to the hypothetical therefore was proper.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211,

20 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).

21 In disputing the ALJ’s step five findings, Plaintiff asserts that the VE’s testimony was

22 “contradictory.” (See Doc. 11 at 7; Doc. 14 at 6.) Specifically, he claims an inconsistency between

23 his RFC for medium work, which he construes as limited to six hours of standing in an eight-hour

24 workday, and the VE’s testimony that a person limited to medium work could perform occupations

25 performed “primarily on one’s feet,” which he construes as requiring standing for at least seven

26 hours. (Id.) “Medium work,” however, requires standing “for a total of approximately 6 hours of

27 an 8-hour workday.” Terry v. Saul, 998 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting TITLES II & XVI:

28 DETERMINING CAPABILITY TO DO OTHER WORK-THE MED.-VOCATIONAL RULES OF APPENDIX 2,

1 SSR 83-10, at *6 (S.S.A. 1983)). “Approximately six hours a day does not mean a maximum of six

2 hours a day[.]” Bates v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:23-CV-2056 AC, 2025 WL 83304, at *5 (E.D.

3 Cal. Jan. 13, 2025) (quoting Mitzi D. v. Saul, No. SA CV 18-01065-DFM, 2019 WL 8112507 at *2

4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2019)) (emphasis in original). But even with such limitation, the VE nevertheless

5 testified that a person who was limited to standing “up to six hours” could perform the medium jobs

6 identified.7 (AR 936.) Plaintiff has not shown that the VE’s testimony was inconsistent, i.e., that

7 the identified occupations done “primarily on one’s feet” required standing for more than six hours.

8 Cf. SSR 83-10, at *5 (work performed “primarily in a seated position” should “generally total

9 approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday”) (emphasis added). The Court therefore concludes

10 that the testimony of the VE constituted substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s determination

11 that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1159–60

12 (“[W]here the [vocational] expert is qualified and presents cogent testimony that does not conflict

13 with other evidence in the record, ‘the expert’s testimony still will clear (even handily so) the more-

14 than-a-mere-scintilla threshold.’”) (quoting Biestek, 587 U.S. at 105).

15 B. The ALJ Properly Found Plaintiff Less Than Fully Credible

16 1. Legal Standard

17 In evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective complaints, an

18 ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). First,

19 the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an

20 underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Id. The

21 claimant is not required to show that [their] impairment “could reasonably be expected to cause the

22 severity of the symptom [they have] alleged; [they] need only show that it could reasonably have

23 caused some degree of the symptom.” Id. (quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th

24 Cir. 2007)). If the claimant meets the first test and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can

25 only reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of the symptoms if they give “specific, clear

26

7 It is for this reason that Plaintiff’s reliance on Conley v. O’Malley, 96 F.4th 1275 (9th Cir. 2024) (Doc. 11 at 6) is

27 misplaced. In Conley, the Ninth Circuit found inconsistent the VE’s testimony that the plaintiff could perform medium

work yet could not perform occupations that included a six-hour standing limitation. 96 F.4th at 1279. Here, no such

28 inconsistency exists: the VE testified that a person who was limited to standing “up to six hours” could perform the

1 and convincing reasons” for the rejection.8 Id. As the Ninth Circuit has explained:

2 The ALJ may consider many factors in weighing a claimant’s credibility,

including (1) ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as the claimant’s

3

reputation for lying, prior inconsistent statements concerning the symptoms, and

4 other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid; (2) unexplained or

inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course

5 of treatment; and (3) the claimant’s daily activities. If the ALJ’s finding is

supported by substantial evidence, the court may not engage in second-guessing.

6

7 Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bray v.

8 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1226–27 (9th Cir. 2009). Other factors the ALJ may

9 consider include a claimant’s work record and testimony from physicians and third parties

10 concerning the nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms of which he complains. Light v. Social

11 Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997).

12 The clear and convincing standard is “not an easy requirement to meet,” as it is “‘the most

13 demanding required in Social Security cases.’” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1015 (9th Cir.

14 2014) (quoting Moore v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)). General

15 findings are not enough to satisfy this standard; the ALJ “‘must identify what testimony is not

16 credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.’” Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d

17 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)).

18 2. Analysis

19 As noted above, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s impairments “could reasonably be expected to

20 cause the alleged symptoms,” but rejected Plaintiff’s subjective testimony as “not entirely consistent

21 with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record . . . .” (AR 875.) In view of this finding,

22 the only remaining issue is whether the ALJ provided “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for

23 Plaintiff’s adverse credibility finding. See Vasquez, 572 F.3d at 591.

24 Plaintiff argues, citing Ninth Circuit authority, that the ALJ “failed to adequately tie []

25 evidence to [Plaintiff’s] testimony she found not credible.” (Doc. 11 at 10 (citing Brown-Hunter v.

26 Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir. 2015).) However, the Ninth Circuit has held that its “cases do

27 not require ALJs to perform a line-by-line exegesis of the claimant’s testimony, nor do they require

28

1 ALJs to draft dissertations when denying benefits.” Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir.

2 2020).

3 Moreover, unlike in Brown-Hunter, the ALJ here did not merely summarize the medical

4 evidence. See 806 F.3d at 495 (finding error where the ALJ stated only a general, nonspecific finding

5 regarding credibility after simply reciting the medical evidence). Rather, the ALJ detailed Plaintiff’s

6 physical allegations of shoulder problems, inability to lift “more than 20 pounds,” and ability to sit,

7 stand, and walk for only “very short periods” (AR 874) and then contrasted that testimony with

8 opposing evidence from the medical record showing performance of certain daily activities;

9 improvement with conservative treatment; and mild objective findings (AR 875–876, 877–79).9 The

10 identification of specific allegations and how the evidence undermines those allegations—described

11 in further detail below—permits the undersigned to review the ALJ’s reasoning. Plaintiff’s

12 argument is therefore unavailing. See, e.g., Guthrie v. Kijakazi, No. 21-36023, 2022 WL 15761380,

13 at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2022) (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that “the ALJ legally erred by failing

14 to clearly identify which portions of his symptom testimony she rejected and failing to link her

15 rejection of that testimony to the record evidence,” where the ALJ “sufficiently explained her reasons

16 for discounting [the plaintiff’s] symptom testimony, and we can easily follow her reasoning and

17 meaningfully review those reasons.”) (citing Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 843, 851 (9th Cir. 2022)

18 (stating that the court considers “the ALJ’s full explanation” and the “entire record”)); Cooper v.

19 Kijakazi, No. 20-15935, 2022 WL 1553170, at *1 (9th Cir. May 17, 2022) (finding no error where

20 the ALJ summarized the plaintiff’s “relevant testimony concerning her key asserted limitations,”

21 “stated that he found ‘these statements of extremely limited physical capacity inconsistent with the

22 overall record,’” and then “explained the specific reasons upon which that conclusion was based.”);

23 Young v. Saul, 845 F. App’x 518, 519–20 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The ALJ specifically cited Young’s

24 written statements and testimony as among the items he had “carefully consider[ed],” and he gave

25 specific reasons why he did not credit Young’s claims concerning the ‘limiting effects’ of Young’s

26 symptoms . . . . The ALJ was not required to mention explicitly, in his ruling, each detail of Young’s

27 testimony.”); compare Holcomb v. Saul, 832 Fed. App'x. 505, 506 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2020) (finding

28

1 no link where “the ALJ never mentioned [the claimant's] symptom testimony while discussing the

2 relevant medical evidence”). See also Mazon v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-cv-00342-SAB, 2023

3 WL 3177797, at *7 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2023) (the ALJ’s sequence of summarizing evidence followed

4 by giving specific findings followed a conventional organization for the ALJ’s decision writing

5 which is sufficiently clear for judicial review); Razaqi v. Kijakazi, No. 1:20-CV-01705-GSA, 2022

6 WL 1460204, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2022) (“The ALJ did not necessarily match each piece of

7 evidence with the testimony it purportedly undermined, but no controlling precedent requires that

8 level of specificity. No inferential leaps are required to find the ALJ’s reasoning clear and

9 convincing.”).

10 Here, the Court finds that the ALJ identified at least three valid reasons for discrediting

11 Plaintiff’s physical symptom testimony:

12 a. Reported daily activities

13 First, the ALJ made a reasonable determination based on specific, clear, and convincing

14 evidence that Plaintiff “engaged in a number of activities that are not consistent with the severity of

15 the reported symptoms and undercut a finding of total disability.” (AR 875.) A claimant’s level of

16 activity may support an ALJ’s determination to give less weight to their subjective statements. When

17 a claimant spends a substantial part of the day “engaged in pursuits involving the performance of

18 physical functions that are transferable to a work setting, a specific finding as to this fact may be

19 sufficient to discredit a claimant’s allegations.” Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169

20 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989)). In addition,

21 the Ninth Circuit determined that a claimant’s activities may be used to support an adverse credibility

22 determination where the capabilities contradict the severity of the symptoms reported. See, e.g.,

23 Valentine, 574 F.3d at 693; Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus,

24 the Ninth Circuit determined a claimant’s level of activity can form the basis for an ALJ to discount

25 subjective statements where: (1) the activities contradict a claimant’s testimony or (2) the level of

26 activity “meet[s] the threshold for transferable work skills.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th

27 Cir. 2007).

28 As identified by the ALJ (AR 875, 879), Plaintiff reported during the relevant period that he

1 prepared simple meals, did household chores (such as vacuuming, laundry and loading/unloading

2 the dishwasher), drove, shopped in stores, performed his own activities of daily living without

3 assistance, walked for exercise, went to church twice per week, cared for his young grandchildren

4 (including changing diapers and picking them up from school), cared for an elderly couple (including

5 lifting and transferring a person weighing 160 pounds), traveled by airplane out of state to visit

6 friends and family, performed home exercises, socialized with others (including visiting with his

7 mother and attending church group meetings), and went fishing. (AR 43, 49, 60–62, 65, 66, 231–

8 32, 234, 638, 570–71, 1294, 1281, 1303, 1335, 1757, 1882, 2589, 2583.) Plaintiff does not dispute

9 he performed these activities. Instead, he asserts that “there is no indication that these activities

10 equate to the ability to engage in medium work on a full-time basis.” (Doc. 11 at 10.) But the Ninth

11 Circuit has indicated that there are “two grounds for using daily activities to form the basis of an

12 adverse credibility determination.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 639 (emphasis added). “When an ALJ finds

13 the claimant’s level of activities contradicts their testimony, the ALJ is not required also to find that

14 the level of activity is transferable to work.” Valdez v. Bisignano, No. 1:24-CV-0026 JLT EPG,

15 2025 WL 2330229, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2025). “Rather, these are separate considerations.”

16 Id. id. (citing Orn, 495 F3d at 639); see also Stubbs-Danielson, 539 F.3d at 1175 (“where . . .

17 activities suggest some difficulty functioning, they may be grounds for discrediting the claimant’s

18 testimony to the extent that they contradict claims of a totally debilitating impairment); Valentine,

19 574 F.3d at 693 (finding the ALJ identified “a clear and convincing reason to reject [the claimant’s]

20 subjective testimony” where the level of activity “contradicted [his] contentions about how

21 debilitating his fatigue was”).

22 Here, the ALJ reasonably concluded, based on substantial evidence in the record, that

23 Plaintiff’s activities contradicted his allegations of an inability to sit, stand, or walk for more than

24 minimal periods, or lift more than a few pounds, because they demonstrated “repetitive motion,” “an

25 ability to sit for extended periods of time,” “use of the upper extremities,” and “good use of the

26 arms” (AR 875, 879). See, e.g., Kaufmann, 32 F.4th at 851–52 (“Looking to the entire record,

27 substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Claimant’s testimony about the extent of

28 her limitations conflicted with the evidence of her daily activities, such as sewing, crocheting, and

1 vacationing.”). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ was not required also to find that his

2 activities equated with the performance of full-time medium work. See Valdez, 2025 WL 2330229,

3 at *6 (“As the magistrate judge found, ‘the ALJ made a reasonable determination that Plaintiff’s

4 daily activities, as reported in her physical therapy and other post-surgical treatment records, were

5 inconsistent with her hearing testimony.’ Plaintiff’s objection that the ALJ was also required to find

6 her activities rose to the level of transferable to work is unsupported by established law.”) (internal

7 citations omitted).

8 b. Treatment history

9 Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medical treatment is inconsistent with his statements

10 concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms.” (AR 875.) Specifically,

11 the ALJ observed that Plaintiff’s treatment for his “allegedly disabling shoulder” impairments has

12 been “essentially routine or conservative in nature” with “good response” and there was a “gap

13 between the initial reports of left shoulder pain and further evaluation.” (AR 875–76, 879, 886.)

14 “[E]vidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony

15 regarding severity of an impairment.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

16 Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). An ALJ also may find a claimant less

17 credible when their symptoms can be controlled by treatment and/or medication. See 20 C.F.R. §

18 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v); Morgan, 169 F.3d at 599 (the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination

19 properly accounted for physician’s report of improvement with medication); Odle v. Heckler, 707

20 F.2d 439, 440 (9th Cir. 1983) (affirming denial of benefits and noting that claimant’s impairments

21 were responsive to treatment); see also Warre v. Comm’r, 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006)

22 (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purposes

23 of determining eligibility for [disability] benefits.”).

24 There is substantial evidence in the record on which the ALJ relied that Plaintiff’s course of

25 treatment for his shoulder impairments was routine and conservative overall, even though he

26 underwent surgery on his right shoulder following his workplace injury. (See AR 875–76, 879.) For

27 example, Plaintiff’s post-surgical right shoulder pain was treated primarily with physical therapy

28 and pain medication. (See AR (AR 462, 465–66, 488). Plaintiff’s left shoulder pain was similarly

1 treated, with physical therapy and occasional steroid injections. (See AR 570, 911, 1881, 3914–15.)

2 There is also substantial evidence that these treatment modalities improved Plaintiff’s condition (see

3 AR 462 (“feeling well” post-surgery); AR 465–66 (“doing well” with physical therapy); AR 488

4 (physical therapy and pain medication “helping decrease his shoulder pain and increase his range of

5 motion”); AR 1881 (surgery “help[ed] some” and injections helped for “4-6 months at a time”)).

6 See, e.g., Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 500 (9th Cir. 2022) (upholding the ALJ’s rejection of the

7 claimant’s testimony based on their “generally conservative treatment plan” and “overall

8 improvement,” even though the claimant had a surgery following their injury).

9 Plaintiff again does not dispute this evidence. Instead, he criticizes the ALJ for failing to

10 identify “other aggressive treatment options” that would be warranted. (Doc. 11 at 11; Doc. 14 at

11 4.) But the ALJ did discuss more aggressive treatment options: surgery. (See AR 878 (noting that

12 a “planned left shoulder arthroscopy, with subacromial decompression, possible rotator cuff repair

13 versus debridement, and possible application regenerations” was scheduled in January 2024, yet it

14 is “unclear” whether Plaintiff had this procedure) (citing AR 3908–15).)10 To the extent Plaintiff

15 contends that the uncontroverted evidence of “good response” to treatment does not undermine his

16 testimony (Doc. 11 at 11), it is not within the province of this Court to second-guess the ALJ’s

17 reasonable interpretation of that evidence. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.

18 2001) (citing Fair, 885 F.2d at 604). Moreover, Plaintiff does not address, much less explain, his

19 lack of treatment for left shoulder pain between October 2019 and February 2021 (AR 877, 886).

20 See Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991) (“An ALJ may properly discount a

21 plaintiff’s credibility based on an unexplained failure to seek treatment consistent with the alleged

22 severity of the subjective complaints.”).

23 c. Objective medical evidence

24 Lastly, the ALJ found that “clinical findings fail to provide a compelling basis for

25

10 The scheduling surgeon recommended “conservative treatment,” including “NSAIDs, steroid injections, and

26 therapy,” prior to surgery (AR 3914–15). See Loniza v. King, No. CV 23-00352 MWJS-RT, 2025 WL 435943, at *6

(D. Haw. Feb. 7, 2025) (“[I]f the administrative record contains statements from physicians describing a course of

27 treatment as conservative, an ALJ would act rationally in inferring that the physician was aware of more aggressive

treatment options.”); see also Brock v. Astrue, No. C 08-4829 CRB, 2010 WL 1222754, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24,

28 2010) (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that their treatment was not conservative where their “treating physicians

1 [Plaintiff’s] statements regarding limitations in the use of his upper extremities.” (AR 879.) While

2 “an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of medical evidence

3 to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain,” a lack of medical evidence “is a factor that the ALJ

4 can consider in [their] credibility analysis.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 680, 681; see Moisa v. Barnhart,

5 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2004); Morgan, 169 F.3d at 600. See also Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498 (When

6 objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony,

7 the ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.”) (emphasis in original) (collecting

8 cases). Here, the ALJ observed that Plaintiff’s more recent medical records from October 2023

9 showed normal range of motion in his shoulders and normal strength, with no atrophy. (See AR 879

10 (citing AR 3913).) The ALJ also cited the consultative examination from a year prior, which

11 similarly showed normal findings. (See AR 879 (citing AR 1881–85).)

12 This evidence, which is supported by the record, is once again undisputed. Instead, Plaintiff

13 asserts that the ALJ “failed to adequately explain why the findings from the physical examinations,

14 xrays [sic] and MRI results as summarized in the decision do not support [Plaintiff’s] testimony.”

15 (Doc. 11 at 11–12.) The Court disagrees. The ALJ expressly noted that the normal examination

16 findings demonstrate Plaintiff “still has functional use of his upper extremities” and therefore do not

17 support his allegations of upper extremity limitations (AR 879). See Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d

18 1157, 1165–66 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming an ALJ’s rejection of allegations of disabling pain based

19 on normal physical examinations). See also Smartt, 53 F.4th at 499 (“The standard isn’t whether

20 our court is convinced, but instead whether the ALJ’s rationale is clear enough that it has the power

21 to convince.”); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 755 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[W]e are not deprived of

22 our faculties for drawing specific and legitimate inferences from the ALJ’s opinion.”).

23 In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ provided at least three clear and convincing reasons,

24 supported by substantial evidence, to discredit Plaintiff’s reports regarding the extent of his physical

25 impairments.11

26

11 Even if the ALJ had erred in evaluating his subjective symptom testimony, however, Plaintiff has not shown such

27 error would be harmful. Despite bearing the burden of proving his disability, see Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113

(9th Cir. 1999), Plaintiff does not specify what additional functional physical limitations resulting from his alleged

28 symptoms were not accounted for in the ALJ’s RFC assessment or otherwise identify how such error would not be

1

2 After consideration of Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s briefs and a thorough review of the record,

3 the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is therefore

4 AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Frank

5 Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, and against Plaintiff.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8

Dated: July 24, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 (“Where harmfulness of the error is not apparent from the circumstances, the party seeking reversal must explain how

the error caused harm.”). Cf. Ruth F., v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. C20-5603-MAT, 2021 WL 3772067, at *5 (W.D.

28 Wash. Aug. 25, 2021) (“[A]ny error in the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective testimony would be harmless