{"id":490,"date":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=490"},"modified":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","slug":"tobias-mp-bisignano-cd-cal-disability-reverse-symptom-testimony-clear-convincing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=490","title":{"rendered":"Tobias M.P. v. Bisignano \u2014 C.D. Cal. Reverses Disability Denial, Holding ALJ Failed to Tie Symptom Testimony to Specific Contradictions in the Record"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Tobias M.P. 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
2026-01-20<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-02608-JDE<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Social Security, child\u2019s insurance benefits, SSI, subjective symptom testimony, clear and convincing, RFC, Lyme disease, Type I diabetes<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Tobias M.P., who was younger than 22 at his alleged disability onset date, applied for child\u2019s insurance benefits (CIB) under his mother\u2019s earnings record and supplemental security income (SSI). His severe impairments included Type I diabetes, Lyme disease, hypogammaglobulinemia (a low antibody condition), chronic inflammatory polyneuropathy, depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome. He testified that on his bad days he sleeps 18 to 20 hours a day; on his rare good days, around 14 hours. He uses an insulin pump, receives weekly IV infusions, and takes multiple medications.<\/p>\n

The administrative law judge (ALJ) found him not disabled, concluding he had the residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with limited postural activities, no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, no exposure to unprotected heights, and a restriction to simple, routine tasks. The ALJ partially discounted Tobias\u2019s symptom testimony as \u201cnot entirely consistent\u201d with the medical record. Tobias sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 405(g).<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. The court applied the Ninth Circuit\u2019s \u201cmost demanding\u201d evidentiary standard in Social Security cases: where a claimant produces objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and there is no evidence of malingering, an ALJ must offer specific, clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount the claimant\u2019s testimony.<\/p>\n

The Commissioner defended the ALJ\u2019s rejection of Tobias\u2019s testimony on four grounds, but the court found the analysis fell short on multiple levels. On objective medical evidence, the ALJ recited that Tobias had reported the absence of certain symptoms to his endocrinologist, but did not explain how those reports actually contradicted his testimony of severe fatigue and good-day\/bad-day patterns. Under Smartt v. Kijakazi and Trevizo v. Berryhill, an ALJ must \u201cshow his work\u201d by tying specific testimony to specific contradictory evidence \u2014 a mere lack of corroboration is not enough.<\/p>\n

On daily activities, the ALJ pointed to Tobias\u2019s ability to attend a few junior college classes and pursue art, but the Ninth Circuit has \u201crepeatedly warned that ALJs must be especially cautious\u201d in equating limited daily activities with capacity for full-time work, particularly where impairments produce overwhelming fatigue.<\/p>\n

On effective treatment, the court agreed that Type I diabetes was effectively controlled by the insulin pump but pointed out that the ALJ did not make a substantial-evidence finding that Tobias\u2019s most disabling symptom \u2014 severe fatigue causing 18-to-20-hour sleep periods \u2014 had been controlled by treatment for his Lyme disease and other conditions.<\/p>\n

Because the symptom-testimony error was not harmless, the court did not reach Tobias\u2019s alternative challenge to the RFC formulation. It remanded on an \u201copen record\u201d for the ALJ to reassess the symptom testimony and, if appropriate, the RFC and remaining steps of the sequential analysis.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n