Catalano

MEMORANDUM *

Jennie Catalano appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of Social Security disability benefits. Because the ALJ offered clear and convincing reasons for partially discrediting Catalano’s testimony, and because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s decision upholding the ALJ’s denial of Social Security disability benefits. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008). The ALJ’s decision must be affirmed if it applied the correct legal standard and is supported by substantial evidence. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir.2007).

I. Credibility of Catalano’s Testimony

“To determine whether a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain or symptoms is credible, an ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir.2007). “First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment ‘which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.’ ” Id. at 1036 (quoting Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341,…

dissenting.

Often in this circuit, when we decide a case by memorandum disposition, we include language stating that “because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them.” 1 This language has always struck me as odd, since the parties are “familiar with the facts” in every case. This case, however, shows why reciting at least some facts can be important: It prevents us from basing our decisions on illusory records and arriving at decisions that would be inconceivable under the actual records before us.

I am not sure to what record my colleagues are referring when they say that “the ALJ offered clear and convincing reasons for partially discrediting Catalano’s testimony” that her medical impairment caused her to miss work regularly. Maj. op. at 602. They are most certainly not referring to the record in this case. In this case the ALJ did not even identify which portions of Catalano’s testimony he was rejecting, nor did he offer any reasons for doing so, let alone provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for any such rejection. Moreover, the actual record reveals that there was no testimony or other evidence that contradicts or undermines the part of…