Tholmer v. Frank J. Bisignano
- Alex Tse
- 3:25-cv-05382
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Tholmer v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Tse affirmed the agency's denial of Toshambe Tholmer's social security disability benefits, finding the administrative ruling supported by substantial evidence.
People who have been denied Social Security disability benefits and are challenging that denial in federal court, particularly those whose claims involve mental health impairments, conflicting medical opinions, or ALJ hearings conducted remotely.
What happened
In Tholmer v. Bisignano (No. 25-cv-05382), Toshambe Tholmer asked a federal court to reverse a Social Security administrative law judge's (ALJ's) decision denying him disability benefits. Tholmer raised five arguments: that the ALJ wrongly rejected his treating doctor's opinion, inconsistently evaluated two government consultants' opinions, failed to address his therapist's notes, improperly discounted his own testimony about his symptoms, and applied the wrong legal standards because the ALJ conducted the hearing remotely from Virginia.
The court rejected all five arguments. It found that the ALJ was permitted to discount the treating doctor's opinion because it conflicted with that same doctor's own treatment notes, which showed generally normal mental status exams and improvement with medication. The inconsistency in how the ALJ treated the two government consultants' opinions was deemed harmless because the ALJ actually imposed more restrictions on Tholmer than either consultant suggested. The therapist's notes were found not to qualify as a formal medical opinion requiring the ALJ to address them. Tholmer's own symptom testimony was found to be inconsistent with the medical record, giving the ALJ a valid reason to discount it. Finally, the court found no evidence that the Virginia-based ALJ applied the wrong law.
Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse affirmed the ALJ's decision and stated that judgment would be separately entered in favor of the Social Security Commissioner.
The detailed version
- Tholmer v. Frank J. Bisignano · No. 3:25-cv-05382
- Alex Tse
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Toshambe Tholmer sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) — the federal statute allowing people to challenge Social Security decisions in court — of an ALJ's denial of his application for Social Security disability benefits. The case came before the court on cross-motions (Dkt. Nos. 18, 19), with Tholmer arguing the ALJ committed multiple reversible errors.
Issue 1: Rejection of Treating Physician Opinion
Dr. Alina Cote opined that Tholmer was not well enough to work. The ALJ rejected her opinion as inconsistent with the overall medical record and with Dr. Cote's own treatment notes. The court found substantial evidence supported that assessment, noting that Dr. Cote's notes documented generally normal mental status exams, stability with medication, and only intermittent paranoia and hallucinations. Citing Kitchen v. Kijakazi, 82 F.4th 732, 740 (9th Cir. 2023), the court confirmed that an ALJ may reject a medical opinion inconsistent with the opining doctor's own unremarkable mental status examinations.
Issue 2: Inconsistent Treatment of State Agency Consultants
The ALJ found one State agency consultant's opinion (Dr. Kravitz) persuasive and another's (Dr. Boyd) unpersuasive, even though the two opinions did not materially differ — both found Tholmer's mental impairments mild. The court acknowledged this inconsistency but held the error harmless. The ALJ's own residual functional capacity (RFC) finding — which describes what a claimant can still do despite impairments — was actually more restrictive than either consultant's opinion, limiting Tholmer to simple decisions, simple instructions, only occasional workplace changes, and no direct public interaction. Citing Dale v. Colvin, 2017 WL 354612 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 4, 2017), the court held that when an ALJ's RFC is more restrictive than the medical source's opined limitations, there can be no harmful error.
Issue 3: Therapist's Notes
Tholmer argued the ALJ failed to address the notes of his therapist, Shauna McFarland, LMFT (Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist). The court disagreed. McFarland's records (AR 681–86) were treatment and progress notes, not a formal medical opinion about what Tholmer could still do despite his impairments, as defined by 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(2). Because the notes expressed no opinion about the severity of impairments or resulting functional limitations, they did not qualify as medical opinions the ALJ was required to evaluate. The court cited Kaminski v. Kijakazi, 856 F. App'x 735, 736 (9th Cir. 2021).
Issue 4: Discounting Tholmer's Subjective Symptom Testimony
The ALJ discounted Tholmer's testimony that, for example, he was too paranoid to work, finding it inconsistent with his generally normal mental status exams and documented improvement with medication. The court held the ALJ provided "clear and convincing reasons" — the legal standard under Ninth Circuit precedent — for discounting this testimony, and that the ALJ's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. The court cited Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007), and Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 498 (9th Cir. 2022).
Issue 5: ALJ's Remote Location and Applicable Law
Tholmer argued that because the ALJ conducted the hearing remotely from Virginia, the ALJ may not have properly applied Ninth Circuit binding precedent. The court rejected this as conjecture unsupported by the record, noting that the ALJ was aware Tholmer lived in California and that there was no indication the wrong law was applied.
Disposition
The court affirmed the ALJ's decision in its entirety and stated it would separately enter judgment for the Social Security Commissioner.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.