Corralejo v. Bisignano: Ninth Circuit Reaffirms Strict Appeals Standards

This Ninth Circuit memorandum opinion doesn’t break new legal ground—but it reinforces several recurring themes in social security appeals, especially when records are thin and arguments are underdeveloped.

Key Takeaways

• Appeals fail when records lack support and arguments are weak.

• Claimants must clearly articulate legal theories at every step.

• The Ninth Circuit will affirm favorable agency decisions when plaintiffs don’t carry their burden.

  
  

Step Two: “Severe” Means Functional Limitations, Not Just Diagnoses

What Happened

• The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found only one severe impairment: diabetes mellitus.

• All other alleged impairments were excluded at step two.

  
  

Ninth Circuit’s Reasoning

• The court emphasized that only functionally supported impairments matter at step two.

• Diagnoses mentioned in the record aren’t “severe” unless they are shown to affect functional ability.

  
  

Why This Matters

• Step‑two errors are harmless unless they affect the RFC or the ultimate decision.

• The claimant herself testified that diabetes was her reason for stopping work and that nothing else prevented her from working — and that fact carried weight.

  
  

Objective Evidence Still Matters (Even in 2025)

The Knee Pain Issue

• The claimant said she had knee pain from a “bone island.”

• The court noted a lack of objective medical evidence of any functional limitation.

  
  

Legal Principle

• Under Smolen, subjective complaints alone don’t establish a medically determinable impairment.

• Objective medical support is a must for alleged physical limitations.

  
  

Practical Lesson

• Merely feeling pain isn’t enough — the record must show an impairment that reasonably could cause functional limitations.

  
  

Step Three: Boilerplate Language Is Fine When the Claimant Offers Nothing

The Claimant’s Argument

• The claimant argued the ALJ’s step‑three analysis was “boilerplate.”

  
  

Court’s Response

• That argument failed because the claimant never identified a specific listing she believed was met or equaled.

  
  

Important Rule

• If a claimant does not explain how an impairment meets a listing, the ALJ’s brief explanation is acceptable.

• A late argument in a reply brief about an “independent duty” to identify listings was waived.

  
  

Practice Tip

• Be explicit, early, and specific when asserting that a listing is met or equaled.

  
  

RFC: Consultative Exams Still Carry Real Weight

How the ALJ Built the RFC

• The RFC supported medium work with some non‑exertional limits.

• It relied heavily on a consultative examiner (CE).

  
  

What Went Wrong

• The claimant did not challenge the CE’s reliability in her opening brief.

• The Ninth Circuit treated that omission as forfeiture.

  
  

Lesson for Practitioners

• If you plan to attack a CE’s opinion, do it clearly and early — not in a later reply brief.

  
  

Bottom Line: Why Corralejo Matters

This case isn’t groundbreaking, but it is instructive about how the Ninth Circuit approaches appeals:

The Court Is Comfortable Affirming When:

• Claimant testimony narrows the theory of disability

• Alleged impairments lack objective support

• Step‑three arguments are undeveloped

• RFC challenges are raised late or inconsistently

  
  

Practical Advice for Litigators

To succeed on appeal in the Ninth Circuit:

• Build a strong, detailed agency record at every step.

• Be precise in your arguments, especially at step two, step three, and in RFC challenges.

• Address consultative exam issues head‑on in the opening brief.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.