RICHARD CORONA V. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, No. 21-56313 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 1 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD CORONA, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-56313 D.C. No. 8:20-cv-02298-VEB v. MEMORANDUM* KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Victor E. Bianchini, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 17, 2022 Pasadena, California Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO,** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. Richard Corona appeals from a district court judgment affirming the final order of the Commissioner of Social Security denying him disability benefits. Our appellate jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision de novo, and we reverse. When an ALJ does not find that the claimant is malingering, and the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably produce the alleged pain or symptoms, she must set forth “specific, clear and convincing” reasons to reject the claimant’s testimony. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2014) (same). The ALJ must “specifically identify the testimony she . . . finds not to be credible and [to] explain what evidence undermines” it. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ did not do so here. Rather than identify the evidence in the record that would support rejection of the claimant’s alleged disabilities, the ALJ only provided a general overview of some of the evidence in the record. “[P]roviding a summary of medical evidence . . . is not the same as providing clear and convincing reasons for finding the claimant’s symptom testimony not credible.” Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 494) (first emphasis added). Put simply, by failing to specifically tie this medical 2 evidence to Corona’s testimony detailing his claimed disabilities, the ALJ’s decision rejecting these claims fell short of the applicable clear and convincing standard. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court, vacate the final order of the Commissioner, and instruct the district court to remand for further administrative proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
