Ary v. Saul, 3:20-cv-00104

Plaintiff David Ary challenged the ALJ’s denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI; ALJ found Ary capable of light work with specific physical and mental limitations and identified representative jobs at step five.
ALJ’s findings: no substantial gainful activity; severe impairments including coronary disease and mental disorders; medically not equal to Listings; RFC: light work with sit/stand/walk 6/8 hrs, no ladders/scaffolds, occasional crawling, limits on public contact and fast-paced production.
Medical record: Ary had a 2015 myocardial infarction but post-event cardiology notes (Drs. Newmark, Mohsen) documented exercise and "good exercise capacity."
Mental-health evidence conflicted: Dr. Binks (more restrictive: e.g., no public contact) vs. Drs. Tomak and Berkowitz (less restrictive); ALJ adopted a middle-ground RFC allowing occasional superficial public interaction.
Procedural history: Magistrate Judge Cobb issued an R&R recommending denial of Ary’s motion and granting the Commissioner; Ary filed multiple extensions and an "incomplete opposition;" the district court denied a further extension and adopted the R&R, denying Ary relief and administratively closing the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / extension to file objections	Ary sought more time due to health/exhaustion and to retain counsel	Court had already granted multiple extensions; Ary had ample time and filed lengthy submissions	Denied further extension; Court considered Ary's "incomplete opposition" on the merits
Substantial-evidence support for physical RFC	Ary contended record shows incapacitating episodes and inability to exert	Medical records show post-MI improvement and cardiologists’ notes of good exercise capacity	ALJ’s physical findings supported by substantial evidence
Weight given to mental-health opinions and mental RFC	Ary argued ALJ undervalued restrictive opinions and failed to account for limitations	ALJ reasonably compared Drs. Binks, Tomak, Berkowitz and adopted a middle-ground limitation	Court upheld ALJ’s weighing and mental RFC as supported by substantial evidence
Adoption of Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R	Ary contended R&R ignored many prior substantive arguments	Commission advocated adoption of R&R as correctly analyzing the record	Court adopted the R&R in full, denied Ary’s motion, granted Commissioner’s motion

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object waives de novo review of magistrate judge recommendations)
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (de novo review required only for portions objected to)
Gutierrez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for substantial evidence review and when to set aside ALJ decision)