{"id":504,"date":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=504"},"modified":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","slug":"sara-f-bisignano-cd-cal-ssi-denial-symptom-testimony-no-treatment-records","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=504","title":{"rendered":"Sara F. v. Bisignano \u2014 C.D. Cal. Affirms SSI Denial Where Claimant Reported Disabling Symptoms Only to Disability Examiners"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Sara F. 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
2026-01-21<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-06001-DFM<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Social Security, SSI, subjective symptom testimony, clear and convincing, lack of treatment, course of treatment, Trevizo, Smartt<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Sara F. applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) \u2014 the federal disability program for low-income individuals \u2014 alleging disability beginning in September 2018 from back pain caused by a car accident. At a hearing in August 2024 she testified that she could stand only a few hours, felt numbness when sitting, refused to lift heavy items, could not pick up more than 10 pounds, did light household chores for short periods, and used heat patches. She acknowledged she had never received pain injections or medications for her back pain.<\/p>\n

The administrative law judge (ALJ) partially discredited her testimony, finding her allegations were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and the course of treatment. Sara F. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 405(g), challenging only the ALJ\u2019s symptom-testimony analysis.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court affirmed the denial of benefits and dismissed the action with prejudice. It applied the Ninth Circuit\u2019s \u201cmost demanding\u201d clear-and-convincing standard for ALJ rejections of subjective symptom testimony but found two specific, supported rationales:<\/p>\n

First, the ALJ identified a striking inconsistency between the claimant\u2019s testimony and the medical record. The submitted records showed treatment at Venice Urgent Care for a cold and COVID in 2022, a urinary tract infection in November 2022, and additional UTI and acute vaginitis treatment in mid-2023 \u2014 but contained no mention of the alleged 2018 car accident or any treatment for back or shoulder pain. The court noted that, like the ALJ, it could not find any reference in the records to the principal complaints driving the disability claim. The only medical providers to whom Sara F. reported the alleged disabling symptoms were the consultative examiners hired by the State agency to evaluate her disability claim. Even those consultative examinations (with Dr. Chuang in January 2023 and again in January 2024) showed mostly normal findings.<\/p>\n

Second, the ALJ properly considered Sara F.\u2019s \u201clack of pursuit of medical treatment\u201d for the allegedly disabling conditions, noting she had not been sent for imaging, prescribed pain medication, attended physical therapy, or been seen by orthopedic or neurosurgical specialists. Under Tommasetti v. Astrue, an unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment can weigh against a claimant\u2019s credibility. Here the contrast between Sara F.\u2019s use of urgent care for relatively minor conditions and her lack of treatment for the allegedly disabling back and shoulder pain reinforced the ALJ\u2019s adverse credibility finding.<\/p>\n

The court rejected Sara F.\u2019s argument that the absence of pre-2022 records was a \u201cstraw-man rationale,\u201d noting that the ALJ also independently relied on the absence of post-2022 treatment for the allegedly disabling conditions. With the ALJ\u2019s reasoning supported by substantial evidence, the court declined to \u201csecond-guess\u201d the symptom-testimony assessment.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n