Prasad v. Bisignano

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABHIJIT PRASAD, No. 25-2727 D.C. No. Appellant, 3:24-cv-04597-LB v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted July 31, 2026** Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Abhijit Prasad appeals a district court order affirming a decision by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denying his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

We review de novo a district court’s order affirming a denial of social security benefits, setting aside the denial only when “the ALJ decision is based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ’s decision should be upheld.” Id. at 674⁠–⁠75 (citation omitted).1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.2 1. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions. An ALJ evaluates a medical opinion’s persuasiveness based on its “supportability and consistency.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2); see also Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2022). The ALJ reasonably found the opinions of Dr. McMillan and Dr. Tang persuasive, grounding that finding in the doctors’ examination findings and the consistency of those findings with the record. And the ALJ permissibly declined to credit the opinions of Dr. White and Dr. Newmark. Those opinions did not assess Prasad’s functional limitations but rather contained conclusory statements about whether Prasad was able to work, an issue reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920b(c)(3). Thus, the opinions were “inherently neither valuable nor persuasive.”

2. The ALJ gave “clear and convincing reasons,” supported by substantial evidence, to discount Prasad’s symptom testimony. Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 497, 499⁠ (9th Cir. 2022). The ALJ identified a direct conflict between Prasad’s testimony that he could not walk two blocks and his report that he walked a mile each day and felt “fresh” afterward. It further relied on Prasad’s testimony regarding his daily activities and return to substantial gainful activity. These are permissible bases for discounting testimony of totally disabling limitations. Id. 3. The ALJ’s finding of severe impairments did not entitle Prasad to an automatic finding of disability. That finding was “a de minimis screening device to dispose of groundless claims,” not a disability determination. Washington v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 1029, 1041 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii)⁠–⁠(iii) (explaining that ALJ will first determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment and then will proceed to determine if the impairment meets the criteria for a disability).

4. The ALJ’s reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony based on the

3 25-2727 ALJ’s hypothetical was proper. A hypothetical must include the limitations the record supports, Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014), but it need not include limitations the ALJ has properly rejected, Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005). The ALJ’s hypothetical incorporated the limitations supported in the record and permissibly omitted discredited allegations.

The expert’s testimony that Prasad could perform his past relevant work captured the residual functional capacity supported by the record, and the ALJ reasonably relied on it. To the extent Prasad faults the ALJ for omitting cognitive limitations, nothing in the record assessed such limitations.

AFFIRMED.3