Fambrini v. Saul

2 Citing cases

  1. Archuleta v. O'Malley

    3:24-cv-00126-CLB (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2024)

    (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2019) (“The omission of mental limitations from the RFC does not indicate the mental impairments were not considered, but rather reflects the conclusion that the impairments would not interfere with Plaintiff's ability to perform basic work activities.”); Fambrini v. Saul, No. 4:19-CV-03701-KAW, 2020 WL 7027434, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2020); see also Hilda V. A., 2023 WL 1107867, at *4 (rejecting procedural argument that if an ALJ decides not to include any functional restrictions in a claimant's RFC due to mild mental limitations assessed during the PRT, then the ALJ must expressly explain why not).

  2. Tyson v. Kijakazi

    1:21-cv-00688-BAM (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023)   Cited 6 times

    When an ALJ performs the Paragraph B analysis and indicates the “degree of limitation” is incorporated into the RFC, this is sufficient to carry the burden imposed by the Regulations. Van Houten v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-CV-01238 - JLT, 2019 WL 691200, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2019) (“The omission of mental limitations from the RFC does not indicate the mental impairments were not considered, but rather reflects the conclusion that the impairments would not interfere with Plaintiff's ability to perform basic work activities.”); Fambrini v. Saul, No. 4:19-CV-03701-KAW, 2020 WL 7027434, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2020) (quoting Van Houten, 2019 WL 691200, at *14); see also Hilda V. A., 2023 WL 1107867, at *4