Rejenna M. v. Bisignano

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 6, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-01153
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 REJENNA M.,1 No. 5:25-cv-01153-AJR

12 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION v. 13 AND ORDER

14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 I. 19 INTRODUCTION 20 Rejenna M. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action seeking to overturn the decision of 21 the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying 22 her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security 23 Income (“SSI”). The parties consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the 24 jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (Dkts. 6, 8, 9.) For 25

26 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court 27 Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 28 1 2 3 II. 4 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 5 On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI, alleging 6 disability commencing April 15, 2021. (Dkt. 10-6 at 2-26.) The Commissioner 7 denied the claims by initial determination on August 15, 2022, (Dkt. 10-5 at 21-26), 8 and upon reconsideration on November 29, 2022. (Id. at 28-33.) Plaintiff then 9 requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. (Id. at 35.) On March 6, 10 2024, Administrative Law Judge Amy Chau (the “ALJ”) conducted an in-person 11 hearing2 and subsequently published an unfavorable decision on May 20, 2024. 12 (Dkt. 10-3 at 22-42, 43-73.) Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ’s decision by the 13 Appeals Council on June 25, 2024. (Dkt. 10-5 at 126-29.) The Appeals Council 14 denied Plaintiff’s request for review on April 9, 2025. (Dkt. 10-3 at 2-8.) On that 15 date, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. See 42 16 U.S.C. § 405(h). Plaintiff now seeks review of the ALJ’s final decision. 17 18 III. 19 THE FIVE-STEP SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 20 To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must demonstrate a medically 21 determinable physical or mental impairment that prevents the claimant from 22 engaging in substantial gainful activity and that is expected to result in death or to 23 last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 24 715, 721 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). The impairment must 25 render the claimant incapable of performing work previously performed or any other 26

27 2 Vocational expert Skyler DePedro (the “VE”) appeared by telephone. (Dkt. 28 10-3 at 45.) 1 2 Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)). 3 To decide if a claimant is entitled to benefits, an ALJ conducts a five-step 4 inquiry. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The steps are: 5 (1) Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, 6 the claimant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. 7 (2) Is the claimant’s impairment severe? If not, the claimant is found not 8 disabled. If so, proceed to step three. 9 (3) Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal one of the specific 10 impairments described in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1? 11 If so, the claimant is found disabled. If not, proceed to step four. 12 (4) Is the claimant capable of performing his past work? If so, the claimant 13 is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step five. 14 (5) Is the claimant able to do any other work? If not, the claimant is found 15 disabled. If so, the claimant is found not disabled. 16 Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098-99; see also Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949, 953- 17 54 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b)-(g)(1), 416.920(b)-(g)(1). 18 The claimant has the burden of proof at steps one through four and the 19 Commissioner has the burden of proof at step five. Bustamante, 262 F.3d at 953-54. 20 Additionally, the ALJ has an affirmative duty to assist the claimant in developing 21 the record at every step of the inquiry. Id. at 954. If, at step four, the claimant 22 meets their burden of establishing an inability to perform past work, the 23 Commissioner must show that the claimant can perform some other work that exists 24 in “significant numbers” in the national economy, taking into account the claimant’s 25 residual functional capacity (“RFC”), age, education, and work experience. Tackett, 26 180 F.3d at 1098, 1100; Reddick, 157 F.3d at 721; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 27 416.920(g)(1). The Commissioner may do so by the testimony of a VE or by 28 1 2 Subpart P, Appendix 2 (commonly known as “the Grids”). Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 3 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001). When a claimant has both exertional (strength- 4 related) and non-exertional limitations, the Grids are inapplicable and the ALJ must 5 take the testimony of a VE. Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2000) 6 (citing Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1340 (9th Cir. 1988)). 7 8 IV. 9 THE ALJ’S DECISION 10 The ALJ employed the five-step sequential evaluation process and concluded 11 that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (Dkt. 12 10-3 at 25-36.) At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in 13 substantial gainful activity since April 15, 2021, the alleged onset date. (Id. at 27.) 14 At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: 15 degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine; Graves’ disease; and 16 uterine fibroids with iron deficiency anemia. (Id. at 28.) The ALJ also determined 17 that Plaintiff had the non-severe physical impairment of tendinosis of the right 18 shoulder and non-severe mental impairments of major depressive disorder and 19 generalized anxiety disorder. (Id. at 28-30.) At step three, the ALJ determined that 20 Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or 21 medically equaled the severity of any of the listings in the regulations. (Id. at 30.) 22 The ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s RFC and concluded that she could perform light 23 works with the limitations that she: 24 lift and/or carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and up to 10 pounds 25 frequently; stand and/or walk for six hours out of an eight-hour 26 workday with regular breaks; sit for six hours out of an eight-hour 27 workday with regular breaks; push and/or pull within the weight limits 28 1 2 never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; frequently balance, stoop, 3 kneel, crouch, and crawl; avoid concentrated exposure to extreme heat; 4 and avoid any exposure to hazards, such as heavy moving machinery 5 and unprotected heights. 6 (Id. (bold omitted).) The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable 7 impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, 8 the [Plaintiff’s] statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects 9 of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other 10 evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” (Id. at 31.) 11 At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant 12 work as a “food deliverer, general clerk, and computer operator.” (Id. at 34 (bold 13 omitted).) Additionally, at step five, the ALJ determined that “there are other jobs 14 that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] also can 15 perform, considering [Plaintiff’s] age, education, work experience, and residual 16 functional capacity.” (Id. at 35.) Specifically, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could 17 perform the representative occupations of marker (Dictionary of Occupational Titles 18 (“DOT”) # 209.587-034, approximately 165,000 such jobs in the national economy), 19 collator operator (DOT # 208.68-010, approximately 31,000 such jobs in the 20 national economy), and router (DOT # 222.587-038, approximately 29,000 such 21 jobs in the national economy). (Id. at 35-36.) Accordingly, the ALJ found that 22 Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined by the Act from April 15, 2021, 23 the alleged onset date, through the date of the ALJ’s decision. (Id. at 36.) 24 25 V. 26 STANDARD OF REVIEW 27 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the Commissioner’s 28 1 2 when the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial 3 evidence in the record as a whole. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) 4 (citing Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006)); 5 Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Tackett, 180 6 F.3d at 1097); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Fair v. 7 Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989)). 8 “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” 9 Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720 (citing Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 10 1997)). It is “relevant evidence which a reasonable person might accept as adequate 11 to support a conclusion.” Id. (citing Jamerson, 112 F.3d at 1066; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 12 1279). To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, the court must 13 “consider the record as a whole, weighing both evidence that supports and evidence 14 that detracts from the [Commissioner’s] conclusion.” Aukland, 257 F.3d at 1035 15 (citing Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1993)). If the evidence can 16 reasonably support either affirming or reversing that conclusion, the court may not 17 substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Reddick, 157 F.3d at 720-21 18 (citing Flaten v. Sec’y, 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1995)). 19 20 VI. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Plaintiff raises a single ground for relief. Plaintiff claims that the ALJ 23 impermissibly rejected her subjective symptom testimony. (Dkt. 13 at 7.) Plaintiff 24 contends that the ALJ failed to explain how the objective medical evidence was 25 inconsistent with her testimony at the hearing or how her daily activities 26 demonstrate that she is capable of maintaining substantial gainful work. (Id. at 7- 27 18.) Defendant argues that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s discounting of 28 1 2 limitations and the objective medical evidence, her activities of daily living and 3 ongoing work activity, and her lack of aggressive treatment commensurate with her 4 alleged level of impairment. (Dkt. 14 at 2-7.) For the reasons set forth below, the 5 Court affirms the decision of the Commissioner. 6 A. Legal Standard. 7 When assessing a claimant’s credibility regarding subjective pain or intensity 8 of symptoms, the ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 9 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017). First, the ALJ must determine if there is medical 10 evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the symptoms alleged. 11 See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014. “In this analysis, the claimant is not required to 12 show that her impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the severity of the 13 symptom she has alleged; she need only show that it could reasonably have caused 14 some degree of the symptom.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). “Nor 15 must a claimant produce objective medical evidence of the pain or fatigue itself, or 16 the severity thereof.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 17 If the claimant satisfies this first step, and there is no evidence of malingering, 18 the ALJ must provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the 19 claimant’s testimony about the symptom severity. See Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 678; see 20 also Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284 (“[T]he ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony 21 regarding the severity of her symptoms only if he makes specific findings stating 22 clear and convincing reasons for doing so.”); Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 23 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[U]nless an ALJ makes a finding of malingering based on 24 affirmative evidence thereof, he or she may only find an applicant not credible by 25 making specific findings as to credibility and stating clear and convincing reasons 26 for each.”). 27 In discrediting the claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ may 28 1 2 (1) ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, such as the claimant’s 3 reputation for lying, prior inconsistent statements concerning the 4 symptoms, and other testimony by the claimant that appears less than 5 candid; (2) unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek 6 treatment or to follow a prescribed course of treatment; and (3) the 7 claimant’s daily activities. 8 Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks 9 omitted). Inconsistencies between a claimant’s testimony and conduct, or internal 10 contradictions in the claimant’s testimony, also may be relevant. See Burrell v. 11 Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2014); Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 119 F.3d 12 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997). In addition, the ALJ may consider the observations of 13 treating and examining physicians regarding, among other matters, the functional 14 restrictions caused by the claimant’s symptoms. See Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284; 15 accord Burrell, 775 F.3d at 1137. However, it is improper for an ALJ to reject 16 subjective testimony based “solely” on its inconsistencies with the objective medical 17 evidence presented. Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th 18 Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 Further, the ALJ must make a credibility determination with findings that are 20 “sufficiently specific to permit the court to conclude that the ALJ did not arbitrarily 21 discredit claimant’s testimony.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th 22 Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 23 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A finding that a claimant’s testimony is not credible 24 must be sufficiently specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude the adjudicator 25 rejected the claimant’s testimony on permissible grounds and did not arbitrarily 26 discredit a claimant’s testimony regarding pain.” (internal quotation marks 27 omitted)). The ALJ must identify “what testimony is not credible and what 28 1 2 Although an ALJ’s interpretation of a claimant’s testimony may not be the only 3 reasonable one, if it is supported by substantial evidence, “it is not [the court’s] role 4 to second-guess it.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 5 B. Plaintiff’s Subjective Symptom Testimony. 6 At the March 6, 2024 hearing, Plaintiff testified that she was currently 7 working as a delivery driver for Grubhub. (Dkt. 10-3 at 49.) Since April 2021, she 8 had worked for part-time for delivery services Postmates, DoorDash, and Grubhub. 9 (Id. at 49-50.) Plaintiff was also working part-time as a blackjack or roulette dealer 10 at a casino, which started in January 2021. (Id. at 51.) In 2021, she worked for six 11 months as the administrator of a group home for foster youth. (Id. at 52-53.) She 12 testified that she had to leave that job because her “physical ailments” did not allow 13 her to perform the duties for which she was hired. (Id. at 53.) Prior to that, she had 14 worked as an administrator at another group home, a clerk at the Riverside County 15 courthouse, and a computer network administrator. (Id. at 53-55.) 16 Plaintiff testified that she was unable to work full-time because of her 17 fibroids, thyroid issues, and mental health. (Id. at 57.) She stated that she could not 18 drive because her medications caused blurry vision, drowsiness, sleepiness, and 19 lightheadedness. (Id.) She continues to work at Grubhub because she can “clock 20 out and go home” whenever she wants. (Id. at 58.) She lives in a house with three 21 roommates and has a valid drivers license. (Id.) She is able to work an eight-hour 22 shift at the casino because they give her a stool so she can “fluctuate between sitting 23 and standing” but testified that she did not think she could continue to do a job that 24 is mostly seated. (Id.) 25 Plaintiff testified that she works three to four days a week and, when not 26 working, stays in bed. (Id. at 59.) She stated that “[s]ome days are worse than 27 others” and, on a bad day, she had “severe depression” with “heart pounding,” 28 1 2 (Id. at 60.) She testified that she had “bad days” approximately 12 times per month 3 causing her to miss work seven or eight times per month. (Id.) She indicated that 4 her vision, tachycardia, mental health, fibroids, and Graves’ disease had “gotten 5 worse” to the point that she could not go out in public. (Id. at 60-61.) She felt that 6 her lightheadedness, rapid heart rate, vision impairment, and drowsiness from 7 medication causes her to nearly “pass out,” leaving her unable to concentrate or stay 8 alert to do her jobs. (Id. at 61-62.) 9 Plaintiff also testified that her mental illness caused “PTSD, slight 10 schizophrenia, and severe depression,” leaving her unable to focus to even pick up a 11 delivery order. (Id. at 62.) She complained that she was “not all there” mentally 12 since her parents and a close friend died. (Id. at 63.) She had been referred to a 13 therapist for her depression, but they recommended improving her coping skills 14 rather than taking medication. (Id.) She testified that she is no longer able to dance, 15 work out at the gym, go to amusement parks, or take long walks. (Id. at 63-64.) 16 She estimated that she could sit for 50 minutes to an hour, could stand for an hour to 17 an hour and 10 minutes, and could only lift approximately five pounds. (Id. at 64.) 18 C. Analysis. 19 The ALJ engaged in the two-step analysis required by Trevizo and found at 20 the first step that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably 21 be expected to cause the alleged symptoms.” (Dkt. 10-3 at 31.) However, the ALJ 22 concluded at the second step that Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, 23 persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with 24 the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” (Id.) The ALJ discounted 25 portions of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony by relying on inconsistencies 26 between her testimony and the objective medical evidence, inconsistencies between 27 her testimony and her activities of daily living, and her intermittent and conservative 28 1 2 1. Objective Medical Evidence. 3 First, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s statements about the alleged intensity, 4 persistence, and limiting effects of her impairments were inconsistent with the 5 objective medical evidence. (Dkt. 10-3 at 31.) The ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s 6 history of Graves’ disease but noted that there was “no indication [Plaintiff] has 7 experienced any chronic complications or that her condition is not adequately 8 controlled with medication” while compliant. (Id. at 32.) The ALJ further noted 9 that diagnostic thyroid scans failed to show any “abnormal lymph nodes, goiters or 10 other chronic issues” and examining medical sources identified no disabilities “due 11 to thyroid dysfunction” or “functional restrictions more limiting than those found by 12 the State Agency.” (Id.) 13 Similarly, the ALJ acknowledged that Plaintiff suffered from uterine fibroids 14 and anemia/iron deficiency but found “no evidence of chronic related 15 complications.” (Id.) The ALJ noted that the medical record lacked evidence that 16 Plaintiff needs surgery to remove the fibroids or that they “significantly impact 17 [Plaintiff’s] general functioning.” (Id.) As for her chronic anemia, “there is no 18 evidence of any associated complications or signs of recurrent arrhythmias.” (Id.) 19 Regarding her orthopedic issues, Plaintiff reported two auto accidents in July 20 and December 2021, after which she complained of neck and back pain. (Id.) The 21 ALJ noted that a February 2022 right shoulder MRI scan showed only mild 22 tendinosis; a February 2022 cervical spine MRI scan revealed multi-level disc 23 protrusions with only mild neural foraminal narrowing; and February and March 24 2022 lumbar spine MRI scans showed L5/S1 and L4/5 disc protrusions with only 25 mild neural foraminal narrowing and mild to moderate bilateral lateral recess 26 stenosis. (Id. (citing Dkt. 10-11 at 57-85, 154-59).) An orthopedic examination in 27 March 2022 showed Plaintiff had “lumbar spine tenderness and reduced ranges of 28 1 2 diagnosed with lumbar sprain, spasm, radiculopathy, and disc herniation, and 3 advised against prolonged sitting or standing and heavy lifting. (Id. at 32-33 (citing 4 Dkt. 10-11 at 160-67).) At additional examinations that month, Plaintiff exhibited 5 bilateral shoulder AC joint tenderness, cervical spine tenderness, and reduced ranges 6 of motion and was diagnosed with right shoulder tendonitis, a left shoulder sprain, 7 and cervical facet arthropathy. (Id. at 33 (citing Dkt. 10-11 at 168-81).) The ALJ 8 noted that Plaintiff did not undergo surgery or receive any facet joint injections, as 9 recommended, but did participate in a “short course of physical therapy between 10 March and May 2022.” (Id. (citing Dkt. 10-11 at 182-87).) 11 Ultimately, the ALJ determined that “the available medical evidence does not 12 support a disability finding” and “[t]here is nothing in the record to support her 13 allegation that she would be incapable of sustaining full time work.” (Id.) 14 Importantly, Plaintiff points to no medical evidence in the record that undermines 15 the ALJ’s findings. (See Dkt. 13 at 7-13.) Accordingly, the Court concludes that 16 the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony regarding the 17 severity of her alleged impairments due to a lack of supporting medical evidence in 18 the record. See Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 498 (9th Cir. 2022) (“When 19 objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s 20 subjective testimony, the ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.” 21 (italics omitted)); Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008) 22 (“Contradiction with the medical record is a sufficient basis for rejecting the 23 claimant’s subjective testimony”); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p 24 (“[O]bjective medical evidence is a useful indicator to help make reasonable 25 conclusions about the intensity and persistence of symptoms, including the effects 26 those symptoms may have on the ability to perform work-related activities . . . .”). 27 As set forth above, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s 28 1 2 objective medical evidence. 3 2. Activities of Daily Living. 4 Second, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “daily activities are inconsistent with 5 [her] statements about the intensity and persistence of symptoms.” (Dkt. 10-3 at 6 31.) Specifically, the ALJ noted that, in April 2022, Plaintiff “reported that she was 7 pain free and she could engage in normal activities of daily living,” including 8 dancing. (Id. (citing Dkt. 10-11 at 255).) In that physical therapy examination note, 9 after completing all of her therapy sessions, Plaintiff reported being “pain free for 10 her normal activities of daily living” with only “mild pain with dancing” and was 11 “able to tolerate prolonged sitting while driving with 0-1/10 pain.” (Dkt. 10-11 at 12 255.) This evidence directly contradicted Plaintiff’s statements regarding her 13 purported pain and sitting limitations, indicating a higher level of functioning than 14 she alleged at the hearing. See Bray, 554 F.3d at 1227 (finding ALJ properly found 15 claimant not credible in part when her testimony at administrative hearing 16 contradicted her statements to evaluating physician); Batson v. Comm’r of the Soc. 17 Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding ALJ properly rejected 18 claimant’s testimony based, in part, on contradictory statements regarding his daily 19 activities); see also Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Even 20 where [a claimant’s] activities suggest some difficulty functioning, they may be 21 grounds for discrediting the claimant’s testimony to the extent that they contradict 22 claims of a totally debilitating impairment.”); Curry v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127, 23 1130 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that a claimant’s ability to “take care of her personal 24 needs, prepare easy meals, do light housework, and shop for some groceries . . . may 25 be seen as inconsistent with the presence of a condition which would preclude all 26 work activity”). 27 Additionally, the ALJ cited the fact that Plaintiff “continues to work (albeit 28 1 2 private party casino worker,” describing herself as “being ‘very active’ as of mid- 3 2022 performing these jobs and testified she continues to perform these jobs.” (Dkt. 4 10-3 at 33.) “An ALJ may consider any work activity, including part-time work, in 5 determining whether a claimant is disabled.” Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1156 6 (9th Cir. 2020). The fact that Plaintiff continued to work several different jobs after 7 the alleged onset date was evidence that the ALJ could properly consider in 8 discounting the severity of her stated impairments. See Richardson v. Comm’r of 9 Soc. Sec., 588 F. App’x 531, 533 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that the claimant’s “ability 10 to work part-time after applying for benefits” supported the ALJ’s decision to 11 discount the claimant’s testimony); Carter v. Astrue, 472 F. App’x 550, 552 (9th 12 Cir. 2012) (finding that the ALJ properly discounted the claimant’s allegations, in 13 part, because the claimant “worked part-time for nearly another year after his 14 alleged disability onset date”); Hannah Leigh J. v. Saul, 2021 WL 1110286, at *15 15 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2021) (finding that the ALJ “properly discounted [p]laintiff’s 16 subjective symptom statements” because evidence “showed [she] worked several 17 part-time jobs” after the alleged onset date and was “currently working” when she 18 filed the disability application). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the 19 ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony was inconsistent 20 with her activities of daily living. 21 3. Conservative Medical Treatment. 22 Third, in discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ 23 found “that the degree of [Plaintiff’s] subjective complaints is not comparable to the 24 frequency or extent of treatment sought by [Plaintiff].” (Dkt. 10-3 at 31.) For 25 example, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s treatment regimen for her symptoms related 26 to fibroids and thyroid issues was “conservative,” only taking propranolol 27 intermittently as needed. (Id. at 32 (citing Dkt. 10-9 at 20; Dkt. 10-10 at 65).) 28 1 2 chronic issues and Plaintiff “has declined more aggressive treatment (e.g. 3 thyroidectomy) in favor of ongoing medication usage.” (Id.) 4 Regarding her chronic anemia, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had been “less 5 than fully compliant with taking iron supplements per medical advice” and 6 “declined intravenous iron therapy.” (Id.) As for her alleged mental impairments, 7 treatment notes showed “she sought therapy to learn coping skills, but her treatment 8 did not include any psychotropic medication.” (Id.) Finally, as discussed 9 previously, Plaintiff’s complaints of shoulder, neck, and back pain were effectively 10 treated and relieved by a short course of physical therapy. (Id. at 32-33.) Thus, the 11 ALJ determined that “the frequency or extent of treatment sought” by Plaintiff was 12 “not comparable to the degree of [her] subjective complaints.” (Id. at 32.) 13 “[E]vidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to discount a claimant’s 14 testimony.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007). Further, an 15 unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment is also a valid basis 16 for discounting a claimant’s credibility. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 638 (9th Cir. 17 2007). Here, Plaintiff has not offered any explanation for her failure to seek more 18 consistent and aggressive treatment for the claimed debilitating symptoms testified 19 to before the ALJ. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ properly relied on 20 evidence of intermittent and conservative medical treatment to discount Plaintiff’s 21 subjective symptom testimony. See Roquemore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 374 F. 22 App’x 693, 695 (9th Cir. 2010) (approving ALJ’s rejection of subjective symptom 23 testimony where “the ALJ noted that treatment of [the plaintiff’s] impairments had 24 been conservative in nature, consisting of only medication and physical therapy”); 25 Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039-40 (finding subjective symptom allegations 26 undermined because Plaintiff responded favorably to conservative treatment 27 including physical therapy and medication). 28 1 4. Conclusion. 2 In sum, the Court concludes that the ALJ provided multiple specific, clear and 3 || convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record for 4 || discounting Plaintiff's testimony regarding the debilitating effects of her 5 || symptoms—i.e., that her allegations were not consistent with the objective medical 6 || evidence and her activities of daily living, and that she received only conservative 7 || treatment for her claimed impairments. As such, remand is not warranted. See 8 || Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857 (rejecting “argument that the ALJ improperly discounted 9 || [claimant’s] testimony” where “[t]he ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for 10 || discounting portions of [plaintiff's] excess pain testimony, and those reasons were 11 || supported by substantial evidence’’). 12 13 VI. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Consistent with the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered 16 || AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner. The Clerk of the Court shall serve 17 || copies of this Order and the Judgment on counsel for both parties. 18 19 20 || DATED: April 6, 2026 \oek ef Le HON. A. JOEL RICHLIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16