{"id":471,"date":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=471"},"modified":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","slug":"ramiro-lm-bisignano-cd-cal-ssi-denial-significant-numbers-step-five","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=471","title":{"rendered":"Ramiro L.M. v. Bisignano \u2014 C.D. Cal. Affirms SSI Denial, Finding 23,000 Cashier-II Jobs Sufficient at Step Five"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Ramiro L.M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-13<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-04023-JDE<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Social Security, SSI, residual functional capacity, vocational expert, significant numbers, Step Five<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Ramiro L.M. applied for Supplemental Security Income \u2014 the federal disability program for low-income individuals \u2014 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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

The ALJ concluded that despite a long list of severe impairments \u2014 including lumbar and cervical spine problems, prior shoulder surgery, hip degeneration, an aneurysm clipped and coil-embolized, and obesity \u2014 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. \u00a7 405(g) seeking judicial review.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court affirmed the Commissioner\u2019s decision. It walked through the deferential \u201csubstantial evidence\u201d standard \u2014 a court may not substitute its judgment for the agency\u2019s when more than a scintilla of relevant evidence supports the result.<\/p>\n

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 \u201csupportability\u201d and \u201cconsistency\u201d with the rest of the record. Here, the ALJ accepted Dr. Chuang\u2019s assessed limitations and incorporated them into the RFC, even adding extra restrictions on changing positions, reaching, and use of a cane. Although the ALJ\u2019s discussion of Dr. Chuang was brief, it adequately addressed the two key regulatory factors and was supported by the examination findings.<\/p>\n

The court also rejected Plaintiff\u2019s 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 \u2014 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\u2019s professional experience and that 23,000 cashier II jobs alone qualify as \u201csignificant numbers,\u201d citing Ninth Circuit precedent that has called 25,000 a significant number even if a \u201cclose call.\u201d Considered in the aggregate (over 35,000 jobs), the step-five finding was not even close.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n