Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Rodger Areyano, Sr. filed applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) on June 27, 2022, alleging disability beginning that date due to degenerative joint disease, degenerative disc disease, and obesity. After initial and reconsideration denials, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on February 27, 2025, and issued an unfavorable decision on July 2, 2025.
The ALJ found Areyano not engaged in substantial gainful activity (step one), identified severe impairments (step two), determined the impairments did not meet or equal a listing (step three), assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with postural and environmental restrictions (step four), and found Areyano could perform his past relevant work as a motor vehicle dispatcher, thus not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review on February 4, 2026, and Areyano filed this action on April 2, 2026. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin for findings and recommendations on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanding the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. The ALJ’s rejection of the treating physician Dr. Kevin B. Calhoun’s December 18, 2023 medical source statement (MSS) was not supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ mischaracterized Dr.
Calhoun’s clinical findings (weakness, antalgic gait, atrophy) as mere symptoms, relied on a primary care physician’s waxing-and-waning pain reports rather than the treating specialist’s consistent severe pain documentation, and selectively cited benign findings (e.g., “structurally competent” knee) while ignoring concurrent objective evidence of reduced range of motion and strength (3-/5 to 4/5) that corroborated Dr. Calhoun’s opinion. The ALJ also failed to account for consultative examiner Dr. Van Kirk’s observation of a “moderate limp favoring the right lower extremity.” Because the ALJ’s RFC assessment (light work) conflicted with Dr. Calhoun’s less-than-sedentary RFC, and the ALJ provided no meaningful analysis of Plaintiff’s testimony mirroring those limitations, the step-four finding that Plaintiff could perform past work as a dispatcher was unsupported. The matter is remanded for proper evaluation of Dr. Calhoun’s opinion, Plaintiff’s symptom testimony, and a revised RFC assessment with vocational evidence at steps four and five.
Key Takeaways
- The ALJ erred by mischaracterizing Dr. Calhoun’s documented ‘clinical findings and objective signs’ (weakness, antalgic gait, atrophy) as subjective ‘symptoms’ to discount his opinion.
- The ALJ improperly favored a primary care physician’s generalized, fluctuating pain scale ratings over the treating specialist’s clinic records showing consistently severe pain (7/10 to 10/10) specific to the claimant’s knee impairments.
- The ALJ’s selective citation of evidence—highlighting ‘structurally competent’ and ‘normal gait’ findings while ignoring concurrent reduced range of motion (65–100 degrees vs. normal 150) and strength deficits (3-/5 to 4/5)—constituted cherry-picking that undermined substantial evidence review.
- The consultative examiner Dr. Van Kirk’s observation of a ‘moderate limp favoring the right lower extremity’ corroborated Dr. Calhoun’s opinion of less-than-sedentary standing/walking capacity, yet the ALJ cited only the ‘normal heel/toe gait’ portion.
- Because the ALJ’s RFC (light work) was not supported by substantial evidence, the step-four finding that Plaintiff could perform past work as a motor vehicle dispatcher cannot stand; remand is required for a new RFC assessment and vocational analysis at steps four and five.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit’s requirement that ALJs provide specific, evidence-supported explanations when rejecting treating physician opinions under the post-2017 regulations (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c). The court emphasized that supportability and consistency factors must be meaningfully articulated, not merely recited, and that ALJs cannot mischaracterize clinical findings as symptoms, selectively cite favorable evidence while ignoring contradictory objective findings, or substitute non-specialist records for treating specialist records without justification.
The ruling also highlights that an ALJ’s failure to address a claimant’s hearing testimony—especially when it aligns with a wrongly rejected medical opinion—compounds the error. The sentence-four remand directs the Commissioner to reassess the RFC with proper consideration of Dr. Calhoun’s opinion and Plaintiff’s testimony, and to obtain updated vocational evidence given the likely shift from light to less-than-sedentary exertional capacity.