# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · August 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11441601

## Case

- **Full name:** Clarissa Jewels Mendoza v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 27, 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/11441601

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 CLARISSA JEWELS MENDOZA,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-EGC

10 Plaintiff,

11 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL
v. SECURITY COMPLAINT
12
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social
13 Security1
(Doc. 1)
14
Defendant.
15
_____________________________________/
16
I. INTRODUCTION
17
Plaintiff Clarissa Jewels Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of
18
the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her application
19
for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under the Social
20
Security Act (the “Act”). (Doc. 1). The matter is currently before the Court on the parties’ briefs,
21
which were submitted, without oral argument, to the Honorable Erin E. Guy Castillo, United States
22
Magistrate Judge.2
23
II. BACKGROUND
24
Plaintiff was born in 1990. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 235). She earned a high school
25
26
1 On May 7, 2025, Clarissa Jewels Mendoza was named Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See
27 https://www.ssa.gov/history/commissioners.html. He is therefore substituted as the defendant in this action. 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
28 of the Commissioner shall, in [their] official capacity, be the proper defendant.”).
1 diploma. (AR 42). Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI, alleging she became disabled on
2 January 21, 2021. (AR 235–44).
3 A. Administrative Proceedings
4 The Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s applications for benefits initially on January 31, 2023,
5 and again on reconsideration on April 27, 2023. (AR 74–137). Consequently, Plaintiff requested a
6 hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (AR 152–82). The ALJ conducted a hearing
7 on June 11, 2024. (AR 35–73). Plaintiff appeared at the hearing with her attorney and testified as
8 to her alleged disabling conditions and work history. (AR 41–66). Plaintiff testified that during
9 previous employment her symptoms “started interfering with her attendance for work,” which led to
10 her being required to quit “because [she] was taking too much time off of work to take care of
11 [her]self.” (AR 49). Plaintiff also testified that she experienced “numbing, tingling, weakness, and
12 shaking” in her hands and that she would drop things due to “a cramping, burning sensation in [her]
13 hand.” (AR 56). She further explained that she needed to have surgery on both of her hands. (AR
14 57). And in discussing what her biggest issues were in terms of limitations on employment, Plaintiff
15 explained, in part, “[h]aving to just carry anything. My hands, I don’t know if I would be able to
16 work enough to where my hands won’t give out.” (AR 58).
17 A Vocational Expert (“VE”) also testified at the hearing. (AR 67–72). In relevant part, the
18 VE testified that a limitation to occasional handling and fingering and / or a limitation
19 accommodating a need to be absent or leave early two times a month would be preclusive of
20 competitive employment. (AR 69−71).
21 B. The ALJ’s Decision
22 In a decision dated June 25, 2024, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. (AR 12–
23 34). The ALJ conducted the five-step disability analysis set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. (AR 17–
24 27). The ALJ decided that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 31,
25 2018. (AR 18). At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s following impairments to be severe: scoliosis,
26 degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spine, Chiari malformation, and obesity. (AR
27 18). The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of
28 impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
1 Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“the Listings”) (step three). (AR 19).
2 The ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (RFC)3 and applied the assessment
3 at steps four and five. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (“Before we go from step three to step four,
4 we assess your residual functional capacity . . . . We use this residual functional capacity assessment
5 at both step four and step five when we evaluate your claim at these steps.”). The ALJ determined
6 that Plaintiff had the following RFC:
7 to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the
claimant is able to frequently climb ramps and stairs. The claimant is occasionally
8 able to climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. The claimant is able to frequently crawl,
crouch, and stoop.
9
(AR 19; see also id. 19–26). Although the ALJ recognized that Plaintiff’s impairments “could
10
reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms,” the ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s subjective
11
testimony as to “the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms” as being “not
12
entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” (AR 20).
13
The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work OR could
14
perform his / her past relevant work experience (step four), but given her RFC, she could perform
15
a significant number of jobs in the national economy (step five). (AR 26–27). In making this
16
determination, the ALJ relied on the VE’s answers to a series of hypothetical questions the ALJ
17
posed to the VE during the hearing. (AR 68–69). The VE testified that a person with the RFC
18
specified above could perform the jobs of marker, routing clerk, cashier II. (AR 26–27). The ALJ
19
ultimately concluded Plaintiff was not disabled at any time after October 31, 2018, the alleged
20
onset date. (AR 27).
21
Plaintiff sought review of this decision before the Appeals Council, which denied review on
22
May 1, 2025. (AR 1–6). Therefore, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the
23
Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.
24

25 3 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 eight hours a day, for five days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.
26 TITLES 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
27 from an 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
28 evidence, and ‘the effects of symptoms, including pain, that are reasonably attributed to a medically determinable
1 III. LEGAL STANDARD
2 A. Applicable Law
3 An individual is considered “disabled” for purposes of disability benefits if [they are] unable
4 “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
5 mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected
6 to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). However,
7 “[a]n individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if [their] physical or mental
8 impairment or impairments are of such severity that [they are] not only unable to do [their] previous
9 work but cannot, considering [their] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind
10 of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” Id. § 423(d)(2)(A).
11 “The Social Security Regulations set out a five-step sequential process for determining
12 whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180
13 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). The Ninth Circuit has provided the
14 following description of the sequential evaluation analysis:
15 In step one, the ALJ determines whether a claimant is currently engaged in
substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the ALJ
16 proceeds to step two and evaluates whether the claimant has a medically severe
impairment or combination of impairments. If not, the claimant is not disabled. If
17 so, the ALJ proceeds to step three and considers whether the impairment or
combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. pt.
18
404, subpt. P, [a]pp. 1. If so, the claimant is automatically presumed disabled. If
19 not, the ALJ proceeds to step four and assesses whether the claimant is capable of
performing [their] past relevant work. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the
20 ALJ proceeds to step five and examines whether the claimant has the [RFC] . . . to
perform any other substantial gainful activity in the national economy. If so, the
21 claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled.
22 Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). “If a claimant is found to be ‘disabled’ or
23 ‘not disabled’ at any step in the sequence, there is no need to consider subsequent steps.” Tackett,
24 180 F.3d at 1098 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520).
25 “The claimant carries the initial burden of proving a disability in steps one through four of
26 the analysis.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 679 (citing Swenson v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989)).
27 “However, if a claimant establishes an inability to continue [their] past work, the burden shifts to
28 the Commissioner in step five to show that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work.”
1 Id. (citing Swenson, 876 F.2d at 687).
2 B. Scope of Review
3 “This court may set aside the Commissioner’s denial of [social security] benefits [only] when
4 the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the record
5 as a whole.” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1097 (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence . . . is ‘more than
6 a mere scintilla,’” and means only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
7 adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) (quoting Consol.
8 Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); see also Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th
9 Cir. 2020).
10 “This is a highly deferential standard of review.” Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
11 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009). “The ALJ’s findings will be upheld if supported by inferences
12 reasonably drawn from the record.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)
13 (citation omitted). Additionally, “[t]he court will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion when the evidence
14 is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Id.; see, e.g., Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d
15 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,
16 the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner.” (citations omitted)).
17 Nonetheless, “the Commissioner’s decision ‘cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a
18 specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Sousa v. Callahan,
19 143 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Rather, a court must ‘consider the record as a whole,
20 weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the [Commissioner’s]
21 conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1993)).
22 Finally, courts “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error that is harmless.”
23 Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,
24 454 F.3d 1050, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2006)). Harmless error “exists when it is clear from the record
25 that ‘the ALJ’s error was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.’” Tommasetti,
26 533 F.3d at 1038 (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[T]he
27 burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s
28 determination.” Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) (citations omitted).
1 IV. DISCUSSION
2 Plaintiff asserts three claims of error: (1) the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing
3 reasons to reject Plaintiff’s statements as to her subjective symptoms, (2) the ALJ’s finding that
4 Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome was not severe was not supported by substantial evidence, and (3)
5 the ALJ’s evaluation of a medical opinion of record was not supported by substantial evidence. (See
6 Doc. 11 at 9–17). The Commissioner counters that (1) the ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff’s
7 symptom allegations, (2) the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome was not a severe
8 impairment is supported by the evidence as required, and (3) the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical
9 opinions of record are supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 15 at 4–10). The Court agrees with
10 Plaintiff that the ALJ improperly discredited Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements with respect
11 to her reports of physical limitations and will remand for further proceedings.4
12 A. Legal Standard
13 In evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective complaints, an
14 ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009). First,
15 the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an
16 underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Id. The
17 claimant is not required to show that their impairment “could reasonably be expected to cause the
18 severity of the symptom [they have] alleged; [they] need only show that it could reasonably have
19 caused some degree of the symptom.” Id. (quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th
20 Cir. 2007)). If the claimant meets the first test and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can
21 reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of the symptoms only if they give “specific, clear
22 and convincing reasons” for the rejection. Id. As the Ninth Circuit has explained:
23 The ALJ may consider many factors in weighing a claimant’s credibility,
including (1) ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as the claimant’s
24

25 4 Because further proceedings will necessitate the re-evaluation of the evidence as a whole, see infra, the Court does
not reach Plaintiff’s other theories of error. See Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Because we
26 remand the case to the ALJ for the reasons stated, we decline to reach [plaintiff’s] alternative ground for remand.”);
see also Rendon G. v. Berryhill, No. EDCV 18-0592-JPR, 2019 WL 2006688, at *8 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2019); Harris
27 v. Colvin, No. 13-cv-05865 RBL, 2014 WL 4092256, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 11, 2014); Augustine ex rel. Ramirez v.
Astrue, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1153 n.7 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“[The] Court need not address the other claims plaintiff
28 raises, none of which would provide plaintiff with any further relief than granted, and all of which can be addressed
1 other testimony by the claimant that appears less than candid; (2) unexplained or
2 inadequately explained failure to seek treatment or to follow a prescribed course
of treatment; and (3) the claimant’s daily activities. If the ALJ’s finding is
3 supported by substantial evidence, the court may not engage in second-guessing.
4 Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bray v.
5 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1226–27 (9th Cir. 2009). Other factors the ALJ may
6 consider include a claimant’s work record and testimony from physicians and third parties
7 concerning the nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms of which the claimant complains. Light
8 v. Social Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997).
9 The clear and convincing standard is “not an easy requirement to meet,” as it is “‘the most
10 demanding required in Social Security cases.’” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1015 (9th Cir.
11 2014) (quoting Moore v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002)). General
12 findings are not enough to satisfy this standard; the ALJ “‘must identify what testimony is not
13 credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.’” Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d
14 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)).
15 B. Analysis
16 In general, “conflicts between a [claimant’s] testimony of subjective complaints and the
17 objective medical evidence in the record” can be “specific and substantial reasons that undermine . . .
18 credibility.” Morgan v. Comm’s of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999). While
19 a claimant’s “testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by
20 objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity
21 of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.
22 2001); see also Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Although lack of medical
23 evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can
24 consider”).
25 If, as here, an ALJ cites objective medical evidence to support the decision to reject
26 subjective statements, it is not sufficient for the ALJ to simply state the testimony is contradicted by
27 the record. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th Cir. 2001). Rather, an ALJ must
28 “specifically identify what testimony is credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s
1 complaints.” Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Lester v. Chater, 81
2 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1996) (the ALJ has a burden to “identify what testimony is not credible and
3 what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints”); Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th
4 Cir. 1993) (an ALJ must identify “what evidence suggests the complaints are not credible”).
5 The Ninth Circuit explained that “summariz[ing] the medical evidence supporting [the] RFC
6 determination . . . is not the sort of explanation or the kind of ‘specific reasons’ [the Court] must
7 have in order to . . . ensure that the claimant's testimony was not arbitrarily discredited.” See, e.g.,
8 Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir. 2015). As a result, “the observations an ALJ
9 makes as part of the summary of the medical record are not sufficient to establish clear and
10 convincing reasons for rejecting a Plaintiff’s credibility.” Argueta v. Colvin, No. 1:15-CV-01110-
11 SKO, 2016 WL 4138577, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016), aff’d sub nom. Argueta v. Berryhill, 703
12 F. App’x 460 (9th Cir. 2017). For example, in Brown-Hunter, the claimant argued the ALJ failed to
13 provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting her symptom testimony. 806 F. 3d at 491. The
14 district court identified inconsistencies in the ALJ’s summary of the medical record that it gave rise
15 to reasonable inferences about Plaintiff's credibility. Id. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined
16 the ALJ failed to identify the testimony she found not credible, and did not link that testimony to
17 support the adverse credibility determination. Id. at 493. The Court explained that even if the district
18 court’s analysis was sound, the analysis could not cure the ALJ’s failure. Id. at 494.
19 In Holcomb v. Saul, the Ninth Circuit determined an ALJ erred when discrediting symptom
20 testimony as “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence,” without linking the testimony and
21 medical evidence. 832 Fed. App’x. 505, 506 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2020). The Court noted the ALJ
22 summarized the claimant’s testimony and “determined that his symptom testimony was not ‘entirely
23 consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.’” Id. at 506. The Court
24 observed that “the ALJ discussed relevant medical evidence but failed to link Holcomb’s symptom
25 testimony to specific medical records and explain why those medical records contradicted his
26 symptom testimony.” Id. Further, the Court observed that “the ALJ never mentioned Holcomb’s
27 symptom testimony while discussing the relevant medical evidence.” Id. Because the Court is
28 constrained to the reviewing reasoning identified by the ALJ for discounting testimony, the Court
1 found the “failure to specific the reasons for discrediting Holcomb’s symptom testimony was
2 reversible error.” Id. (citing Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 494).
3 Likewise here, the ALJ offered no more than a summary of the medical evidence in their
4 evaluation of Plaintiff’s credibility as to “the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his or her
5 symptoms.” (AR 20; see also id. at 20−24). In addressing Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the ALJ
6 stated only: “As for the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects
7 of his or her symptoms, they are somewhat inconsistent with the objective evidence of record.” (Id.
8 at 20). The ALJ did not link any objective findings in the medical record to Plaintiff’s statements at
9 the administrative hearing. (See id. at 20−24).
10 But, in evaluating Plaintiff’s statements as to “the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects
11 of his or her symptoms,” an ALJ must identify the portions of the claimant’s testimony that are not
12 credible. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). “General findings” regarding
13 credibility, such as the ALJ provided here, “are insufficient.” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234
14 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit requires an ALJ to “specifically identify what
15 testimony is credible and what evidence undermines the claimant's complaints.” Greger v. Barnhart,
16 464 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993) (an
17 ALJ “must state which pain testimony is not credible and what evidence suggests the complaints are
18 not credible”); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2007) (the ALJ must “specifically
19 identify[ ] what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints”).
20 Here, while the ALJ included a paragraph recounting Plaintiff’s statements, (AR 20), the ALJ did
21 not meaningfully identify which statements were inconsistent with which medical evidence or
22 provide any explanation as to how such statements were inconsistent. Instead, the ALJ’s
23 engagement of this issue was a mere statement that Plaintiff’s statements were “somewhat
24 inconsistent with the objective evidence of record.” (Id.). But this statement coupled with the ALJ’s
25 mere recitations of the objective medical evidence does not constitute clear and convincing reasons
26 to reject Plaintiff’s statements.
27 Because ALJ did not carry the burden to identify specific statements rejected or the evidence
28 undermining the limitations to which Plaintiff testified, the Court finds that the ALJ failed to
1 properly set forth findings “sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude the ALJ
2 rejected the claimant’s testimony on permissible grounds.” Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885
3 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958. This is especially so here, where the ALJ found
4 that Plaintiff’s statements were only “somewhat inconsistent with the objective evidence of record.”
5 Without any elaboration as to which statements were inconsistent or how the unspecified discredited
6 statements were inconsistent, the Court finds that the ALJ’s summary of the medical record does not
7 support the decision to reject Plaintiff's subjective statements. See Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 494;
8 see also Coloma v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:17-CV-0310-DMC, 2018 WL 5794517, at *9 (E.D.
9 Cal. Nov. 2, 2018) (finding error where “the ALJ simply cite[d] to medical evidence and the general
10 adequacy of Plaintiff's functioning, without any link to how they conflict with, or undermine,
11 Plaintiff's statements”).
12 In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ’s partial rejection of Plaintiff’s subjective statements is
13 not supported by substantial evidence.
14 C. Harmlessness Review
15 The Court must now consider whether the ALJ’s error was harmless. Molina, 674 F.3d at
16 1115. Courts look to the record as a whole to determine whether the error alters the outcome of the
17 case. Id.; March v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 2015). An error is harmless “where it is
18 inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115 (citations
19 omitted) (first quoting Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75, 81 (2d Cir. 1998), and then quoting Rohan
20 v. Chater, 98 F.3d 966, 970 (7th Cir. 1996)).
21 The Court cannot conclude that the error is harmless. Had the ALJ credited Plaintiff’s
22 statements as to her symptoms and associated limitations—in particular her limitations as to her
23 hands and as to her ability to maintain adequate attendance—the disability finding may have been
24 different in light of the VE’s testimony that no jobs would exist if the RFC included handling and
25 fingering limitations or a requirement that a person be absent or leave early two days per month.5
26 (AR 69−71). Thus, the error was not “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.”
27

28 5 This is not to say that the disability determination will or should be different regarding the period at issue--only that
1 | Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115.
2|D. Remand
3 In a case where the ALJ’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence or is taintec
4 | by legal error, the court may remand the matter for additional proceedings or an immediate award
5 | of benefits. Remand for additional proceedings is proper where (1) outstanding issues must be
6 | resolved, and (2) it is not clear from the record before the court that a claimant is disabled. See
7 | Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004).
8 Here, the Court finds that remand for further proceedings is warranted. See, e.g., Bunnell v.
9 | Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 348 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming a remand for further proceedings where the
10 | ALJ failed to explain with sufficient specificity the basis for rejecting the claimant's testimony):
11 | Byrnes v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1995) (remanding the case “for further finding:
12 | evaluating the credibility of [the claimant’s] subjective complaints”). Accordingly, remand is
13 | appropriate for the ALJ to provide sufficient findings concerning Plaintiff's subjective complaints
14 | and the limitations Plaintiff identified in her testimony.
15 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
16 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by
17 | substantial evidence and is therefore VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the ALJ for
18 | further proceedings consistent with this Order. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to enter
19 | judgment in favor of Plaintiff Clarissa Jewels Mendoza and against Defendant Frank Bisignano,
20 | Commissioner of Social Security.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED. .
23 | Dated: _ August 26, 2026 Cn de | Glo
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

1]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11441601. Public record. Not legal advice.