Jay Guzman v. Kilolo Kijakazi

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Jay G. (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Commissioner’s denial of his application for supplemental security income. Plaintiff claims the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in evaluating his subjective mental health complaints. The Commissioner contends the ALJ’s multiple reasons for her findings are supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff filed his brief on January 19, 2024 (“Pl. Brief”), and the Commissioner filed his response on March 22, 2024 (“Comm’r Brief”). (Dkt. Nos. 13, 17.) For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

II. Legal Standard

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. A court must affirm an ALJ’s findings of fact if they, when applied against proper legal standards, are supported by substantial evidence. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458- 59 (9th Cir. 2001). “Substantial evidence . . . is ‘more than a mere scintilla[,]’ . . . [which] means—and means only—‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154, 203 L. Ed. 2d 504…