Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California reviews the denial of Sara F.’s application for supplemental security income. The court holds that the administrative law judge provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, affirms the denial of benefits, and dismisses the action with prejudice.
Holdings
- The ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff's testimony regarding the severity and limiting effects of her symptoms because the testimony was inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and her course of treatment.
Questions Presented
- Whether the ALJ properly evaluated and discounted Plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony concerning the severity and limiting effects of her back and shoulder pain.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (13)
- Luther v. Berryhill, 891 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 102-03, 108 (2019)(followed)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 2015)(distinguished)
- Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…