{"id":503,"date":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=503"},"modified":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","slug":"randy-e-bisignano-cd-cal-disability-reverse-rejection-consultative-examiner-supportability-consistency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=503","title":{"rendered":"Randy E. v. Bisignano \u2014 C.D. Cal. Reverses Disability Denial, Finding ALJ Failed to Adequately Explain Rejection of Consultative Examiner"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Randy E. 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
5:25-cv-00940-DFM<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Social Security, disability insurance benefits, consultative examiner, supportability, consistency, Woods v. Kijakazi, RFC, post-DLI evidence<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Randy E. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning in 2017. After multiple administrative proceedings \u2014 including an Appeals Council remand specifically directing the administrative law judge (ALJ) to reassess his persistent hernias and resulting limitations \u2014 the ALJ on remand again denied benefits. The denial relied in significant part on the ALJ\u2019s rejection of a consultative examination report by Dr. Maximous, who limited the claimant to walking and standing no more than two hours in an eight-hour workday based on Plaintiff\u2019s back pain and coronary artery disease (not his hernias). Randy E. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 405(g).<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court reversed and remanded. Under the post-2017 regulations (20 C.F.R. \u00a7 404.1520c), an ALJ must evaluate medical opinions for supportability and consistency and cannot reject an examining or treating doctor\u2019s opinion as unsupported or inconsistent without an explanation supported by substantial evidence (Woods v. Kijakazi).<\/p>\n

The ALJ rejected Dr. Maximous\u2019s opinion as unsupported because the examination findings \u2014 normal gait, mild lumbar tenderness, reduced range of motion, normal muscle strength \u2014 supposedly did not support the durational limit on standing and walking. The court found that explanation inadequate: the ALJ never explained why those findings actually undercut a two-hour standing-and-walking limit, leaving the court to \u201cguess at the purported inconsistencies.\u201d That is not substantial-evidence reasoning under Brown-Hunter v. Colvin.<\/p>\n

The ALJ separately rejected Dr. Maximous\u2019s opinion as inconsistent with the record during \u201cthe dates of issue.\u201d But the ALJ\u2019s discussion was a long string of record cites without explanation of how those records contradicted the standing-and-walking limitation. Moreover, Dr. Maximous attributed the limitation to back pain and coronary artery disease, not to hernias, so any inconsistency with hernia-related findings was beside the point.<\/p>\n

The court also rejected the implicit timing rationale \u2014 that Dr. Maximous\u2019s exam post-dated Plaintiff\u2019s date last insured (DLI). Under Benson v. Kijakazi, when the agency itself orders a post-DLI examination as part of carrying out a remand, rejecting that examination simply because of its timing is improper.<\/p>\n

Finally, the court declined to consider the Commissioner\u2019s post hoc argument that Dr. Maximous\u2019s opinion was inconsistent with two other doctors\u2019 assessments, because the ALJ never relied on that rationale. Under Bray v. Commissioner, courts review the ALJ\u2019s actual reasoning, not after-the-fact rationalizations.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n