Richard Corona v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD CORONA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-56313
D.C. No. 8:20-cv-02298-VEB
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
DEC 1 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --