{"id":401,"date":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=401"},"modified":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","slug":"blose-commissioner-social-security-ed-cal-affirms-disability-denial-harmless-error","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=401","title":{"rendered":"Blose v. Commissioner of Social Security \u2014 E.D. Cal. Affirms Disability Denial Despite ALJ’s Inaccurate Statement About Treatment Records"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Blose v. Commissioner of Social Security<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Eastern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-13<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
1:22-cv-01651-CDB<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Social Security disability, subjective symptom testimony, harmless error, IBS, lying-down limitation, Carmickle two-track analysis<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The plaintiff, Patricia Elizabeth Blose, applied for Social Security disability benefits based on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), abdominal pain, and related conditions. She testified about her need to lie down for extended periods during the day to manage her symptoms. After the Social Security Administration denied her claim, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a written decision that partially discredited her testimony, including her statement that she needed to lie down throughout the workday.<\/p>\n

One of the ALJ’s reasons for discounting the lying-down testimony was that ‘the claimant failed to report this significantly limiting symptom to any of her treating providers throughout the period under review.’ The plaintiff sought judicial review, arguing that the ALJ’s statement was contradicted by the medical records, which included multiple references to her need to lie down or to symptoms relieved by rest.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The court agreed with the plaintiff on the threshold point: the ALJ’s statement that the claimant ‘failed to report this significantly limiting symptom’ was not entirely supported by the record. The court walked through specific medical entries \u2014 a March 2018 note from Nurse Practitioner Maria Davis stating the plaintiff ‘still requires frequent periods of lying down throughout the day to relieve pain despite medication,’ a November 2019 note from Dr. Nasser stating the plaintiff ‘has been having to lay down ever day for the past two weeks,’ and a June 2020 note that the plaintiff ‘reports of stomach pain flare ups, causing her to become bed rest.’ Several of these records fell within the period under review and reflected the same continuous line of treatment.<\/p>\n

However, the court applied the Ninth Circuit’s two-track harmless error standard from Carmickle v. Commissioner. Where an ALJ provides multiple reasons for a credibility determination and only some of those reasons are flawed, the error is harmless if the remaining valid reasons independently support the determination. Here, the ALJ began by analyzing the plaintiff’s IBS-related symptom testimony and supported the credibility findings with clear and convincing evidence \u2014 namely, contradictions between the plaintiff’s symptom testimony and her contemporaneous statements to providers. The ALJ then connected that analysis to the lying-down testimony with the word ‘additionally,’ which made plain that the IBS-related credibility analysis was intended to apply to the lying-down testimony as well.<\/p>\n

Reading the decision as a whole, the court found that the ALJ properly discounted the plaintiff’s symptom testimony with clear and convincing evidence apart from the inaccurate ‘failed to report’ statement. The error was therefore harmless and did not require remand.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n