Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ramiro L.M. applied for Supplemental Security Income — the federal disability program for low-income individuals — in August 2019, alleging he had been disabled since 2003. After his claim was denied initially and on reconsideration, an administrative law judge held a hearing in 2021 and concluded he was not disabled. He filed an earlier federal lawsuit, which was remanded by stipulation. On remand, a second ALJ held a 2024 hearing and again denied the claim, finding Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (or RFC — what a claimant can still do despite his impairments) for a reduced range of light work, with limits on lifting, standing, walking, fine and gross hand use, and exposure to hazards.
The ALJ concluded that despite a long list of severe impairments — including lumbar and cervical spine problems, prior shoulder surgery, hip degeneration, an aneurysm clipped and coil-embolized, and obesity — Plaintiff could perform jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy, including cashier II, office helper, and toll collector. Plaintiff filed this federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. It walked through the deferential “substantial evidence” standard — a court may not substitute its judgment for the agency’s when more than a scintilla of relevant evidence supports the result.
Plaintiff argued the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Chuang, who diagnosed lumbar and cervical radiculopathy, shoulder impingement, and hip degeneration, and found numerous functional limitations. The court rejected the challenge: under the post-2017 federal regulations, the ALJ no longer must defer to any particular medical source but must assess each opinion for “supportability” and “consistency” with the rest of the record. Here, the ALJ accepted Dr. Chuang’s assessed limitations and incorporated them into the RFC, even adding extra restrictions on changing positions, reaching, and use of a cane. Although the ALJ’s discussion of Dr. Chuang was brief, it adequately addressed the two key regulatory factors and was supported by the examination findings.
The court also rejected Plaintiff’s step-five challenge. The vocational expert testified that the cashier II and office helper jobs identified at the hearing would normally require frequent fine and gross manipulation, but explained the DOT (Dictionary of Occupational Titles) does not address single-extremity limitations and reduced the available numbers by 95 percent — leaving roughly 23,000 cashier II, 7,000 office helper, and 5,100 toll collector jobs nationally. The court held the ALJ properly relied on the VE’s professional experience and that 23,000 cashier II jobs alone qualify as “significant numbers,” citing Ninth Circuit precedent that has called 25,000 a significant number even if a “close call.” Considered in the aggregate (over 35,000 jobs), the step-five finding was not even close.
Key Takeaways
- For SSI claims filed after March 27, 2017, ALJs no longer give automatic deference to treating-source opinions; supportability and consistency are the two most important factors.
- An ALJ’s explanation of a medical opinion can be brief and still be adequate, so long as the analysis touches the supportability and consistency factors and is grounded in the record.
- An ALJ’s RFC need not exactly match any one physician’s assessment — it must reflect the record as a whole.
- Vocational experts can testify to the percentage of a DOT-listed occupation that remains available given a single-arm or single-hand limitation, and the ALJ may rely on that testimony.
- The Ninth Circuit has not set a bright line, but 23,000 cashier II jobs alone — and especially in the aggregate with related occupations — count as “significant numbers” at step five.
Why It Matters
Step-five findings are the most common battleground in Social Security disability appeals. Claimants frequently argue that the vocational expert’s job numbers are inflated, that asserted occupations would in fact require greater hand or arm use than the RFC allows, or that the residual jobs do not exist in “significant” numbers. This decision shows that the Central District of California will accept reasoned VE explanations of why the DOT entries do not capture single-extremity limits, and will treat numbers in the low five figures as sufficient.
For practitioners, the practical takeaways are to attack the underlying RFC rather than the vocational testimony in isolation, and to scrutinize whether the ALJ adequately addressed supportability and consistency for each medical opinion. For claimants, the case is a reminder that even severe physical impairments will not satisfy the “disability” standard if the ALJ can identify a sustainable, low-skill light-work occupation in the national economy.