1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBYN D. P., Case No. 2:24-cv-09088-HDV (BFM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 16 Defendant. 17

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the 19 records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of 21 those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 22 The Report recommends that the Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s 23 application for disability benefits be affirmed. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff’s objections 24 to the Report (ECF No. 18) do not merit a change to the Report’s findings or 25 recommendations. 26 Plaintiff objects that the Report impermissibly supplied missing reasons that 27 the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not author. (ECF No. 18 at 2-4.) The 28 allegedly missing reasons involved Plaintiff’s need to use a cane for balance, not 1 || Just ambulation, in performing a range of light work. (/d. at 2.) As the Report 2 || found, however, no medical source opined that Plaintiff required a cane for balance, 3 || as required by Social Security Ruling 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *7. (ECF No. 16 4 || at 6.) Plaintiff points to no such evidence. (/d.) Thus, Plaintiff does not 5 || persuasively argue why the ALJ was required to make a detailed finding about a 6 || limitation that no medical source found. 7 Plaintiff objects that the Report mistakenly found that “the ALJ’s failure to 8 || provide a robust explanation is harmless.” (ECF No. 18 at 4-6.) As the Report 3 || found, however, given the absence of evidence from a medical source opinion that 10 || Plaintiff needed a cane for balance, the ALJ’s analysis of the issue was not 11 || erroneous. (ECF No. 16 at 6.) Moreover, even assuming that the failure to provide 12 || an explanation was erroneous, the error was harmless because the ALJ credited the 13 || only cane-related limitation that any medical professional ever suggested was 14 || appropriate, which was the need to use a hand-held assistive device for ambulation. 15 || (ECF No. 8-3 at 22.) As such, any failure to provide a more thorough explanation 16 || was harmless. (ECF No. 16 at 8.) 17 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted and 18 || adopted; (2) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied; and (3) Judgment 19 || will be entered in favor of Defendant affirming the decision of the Commissioner. 20 21 | DATED: _ 8/20/25 AV. “yy? 22 (46 a 23 2a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28