Clinton Wible v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CLINTON WIBLE, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05590-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING THE 12 v. COMMISSIONER’S FINAL DECISION 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of his application for a period of disability and 17 disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff contends the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in 18 assessing Plaintiff’s testimony and the medical opinion of Zachary Sparer, ND. For the reasons 19 discussed herein, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and DISMISSES the 20 case with prejudice. 21 I BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff filed his application for disability insurance benefits on April 23, 2023. 23 (Administrative Record (“AR”) at 17.) Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and on 24 1 reconsideration. (AR 17.) Plaintiff’s requested hearing was held before the ALJ on December 5, 2 2024. (AR 17.) On January 31, 2025, the ALJ issued an order finding Plaintiff was not disabled 3 pursuant to the Social Security Act, sections 216(i) and 223(d). (AR 14, 17.) 4 Using the five-step disability evaluation, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled at step four.

5 At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 6 10, 2022. (AR 19.) At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: 7 degenerative disc disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, neuropathy, obesity, sleep apnea, cervical 8 radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, and facet arthropathy. (AR 19.) At step three, the ALJ found 9 these impairments do not meet or equal a listed impairment. (AR 21.) The ALJ found Plaintiff 10 has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform “light work” that does not require 11 “lifting or carrying more than 10 pounds;” “kneeling, crawling, or climbing of ladders, ropes, or 12 scaffolds;” “more than occasional stooping, crouching, or climbing of ramps or stairs;” “more 13 than frequent balancing;” “more than occasional handling, fingering, or feeling;” or 14 “concentrated exposure to hazards or extreme cold.” (AR 21.) In considering Plaintiff’s

15 symptoms, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could 16 reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms to some degree,” but 17 “[i]nconsistencies [with the treatment record and contemporaneous reports of actual functioning] 18 undermine the weight that can be given to the claimant’s symptom reports.” (AR 22.) At step 19 four, the ALJ found Plaintiff can perform his past work as a Safety Manager and a Quality 20 Control Manager and is thus not disabled. (AR 28–29.)1 21 22

1 Having found Plaintiff not disabled at step four, the ALJ did not consider step five. (AR 19) 23 (only “[i]f the claimant is unable to do any past relevant work or does not have any past relevant work, [does] the analysis proceed[] to the fifth and last step.”.) 24 1 The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the 2 Commissioner’s final decision. (AR 1, 5.) On July 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this 3 Court. (Dkt. No. 3.) 4 II LEGAL STANDARD

5 The Court may reverse the ALJ’s decision only if it is legally erroneous or not supported 6 by substantial evidence of record. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020). The Court 7 must examine the record but cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the 8 ALJ’s. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). When evidence is susceptible to 9 more than one interpretation, the Court must uphold the ALJ’s interpretation if rational. Ford, 10 950 F.3d at 1154. Also, the Court “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error 11 that is harmless.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). 12 III DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiff raises two issues in his opening brief: (1) whether the ALJ properly evaluated 14 Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony and (2) whether the ALJ properly evaluated the opinion

15 of Zachary Sparer, ND. (Dkt. No. 11.) Defendant responded, arguing neither serves as a basis to 16 reverse the ALJ’s decision. (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff did not file a reply. 17 A. Plaintiff’s Testimony 18 “In deciding whether to admit a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ must 19 engage in a two-step analysis.” Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 359 20 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004). First, “the claimant must produce objective medical evidence 21 of underlying ‘impairment,’ and must show that the impairment, or a combination of 22 impairments, ‘could reasonably be expected to produce pain or other symptoms.’” Id. (quoting 23 Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281–1282 (9th Cir. 1996)). Second, “and if the ALJ’s

24 1 credibility analysis of the claimant’s testimony shows no malingering, then the ALJ may reject 2 the claimant’s testimony about the severity of symptoms with ‘specific findings stating clear and 3 convincing reasons for doing so.” Id. (quoting Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284). 4 At his December 5, 2024 hearing, Plaintiff testified about his condition. He stated that,

5 for approximately three and a half years, he has required significant assistance from his wife, 6 including assistance with clothing, personal hygiene, feeding, and driving. (AR 54–55.) He 7 testified that he worked for approximately a year after his wife began assisting him at home and, 8 during this period, he “wasn’t able to function in that job” and spent “[a]bout 80 percent” of the 9 time laying down in the bathroom. (AR 60, 62.) At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff testified 10 “[a]s much as possible, I try not to use my hands” and that he “[couldn’t] stand for any length of 11 time.” (AR 55, 57.) Plaintiff further confirmed that from June 2023 to late 2024, he had only 12 seen Zachary Sparer, ND, at A to Z Wellness and Dr. Henegan at Alliance Pain Center. (AR 57– 13 58.) He also had an MRI scheduled for February 2025. (AR 57.) Plaintiff has a “VA rating of 14 100 percent disability.” (AR 59.)

15 It is undisputed that Plaintiff produced objective medical evidence of the following 16 severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, neuropathy, obesity, 17 sleep apnea, cervical radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, and facet arthropathy. (AR 19.) But at step 18 two, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony undermined.2 19 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony inconsistent with his clinical record. First, the ALJ 20 noted, at a September 2022 medical appointment, Plaintiff “demonstrated full strength in both 21

2 Defendant indirectly argues in briefing that the ALJ found malingering. (Dkt. No. 13 at 8) 22 (discussing ALJ’s “findings indicating exaggeration”.) Because the ALJ did not find malingering and instead found Plaintiff unreliable at step two, the Court similarly does not find 23 malingering and instead reviews only the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s credibility under step two. 24 1 upper extremities, normal sensory exam in C5-T1 dermatomes, and normal cervical and shoulder 2 ranges of motion.” (AR 24.) Second, the ALJ noted, in August 2023, Plaintiff could “remove 3 and replace his shoes, make a fist, and pick up a coin from a flat surface with both hands without 4 difficulty.” (AR 24.) The ALJ concluded, based on these clinical findings, “[t]he claimant is not

5 without limitation, but the degree of limitation he has asserted is inconsistent with the 6 capabilities shown in the medical evidence as well as the variations demonstrated in the 7 evidence.” (AR 24.) 8 The ALJ also found inconsistencies within the Plaintiff’s symptom reports. First, the 9 ALJ found only ten days before Plaintiff stopped working, Plaintiff “indicated that he could 10 bathe, toilet, and dress himself” as well as “lift 50 pounds occasionally and that he could do 11 normal work.” (AR 25.) Second, the ALJ found the fact Plaintiff continued working after his 12 wife began assisting him at home indicates “[w]hile they may have chosen to have her do these 13 functions for him,” nothing in the record “show[s] he could not have done them for himself.” 14 (AR 25.) Third, the ALJ found it inconsistent that Plaintiff would be laying down in the

15 bathroom for 80% of the day at work but only mentioned at his April 1, 2022 treatment 16 appointment that “‘physical labor/exertion’ aggravated his condition and that he occasionally 17 switches hands to cope.” (AR 25.) Fourth, the ALJ noted Plaintiff indicated “80-90% 18 improvement” in August 2022 and continued improvement through March 2023. (AR 26.) 19 Fifth, the ALJ found Plaintiff declined multiple treatments. (AR 26.) Sixth, the ALJ found 20 Plaintiff’s statements to Dr. Henegan that “he was unable to perform self-care, housework, 21 shopping or any other sort of activities” inconsistent with his function report and hearing 22 testimony. (AR 26.) Seventh, the ALJ found Plaintiff inconsistently referred to his pain at times 23

24 1 as “numbness and tingling, aching discomfort, and some handgrip weakness” and at other times 2 “extreme pain and electric shocks.” (AR 26.) 3 Plaintiff makes two arguments in defense of his own testimony. First, Plaintiff argues the 4 ALJ ignored an October 2022 MRI “which found cervical spinal stenosis moderate to severe at

5 C5-C6, and moderate to severe spinal stenosis at C6-C7, severe stenosis to the right at C6-C7 6 and moderate[] to severe right C7-T1 neural foraminal stenosis with lesser degrees of neural 7 foraminal stenosis throughout the remainder of the cervical spine.” (Dkt. No. 11 at 2–3.) 8 Plaintiff asserts the ALJ relied primarily on a report by Dr. Henegan—who lacked access to the 9 MRI—but Dr. Vogelgesang—who reviewed the MRI—noted stenosis as well as “carpal tunnel 10 rated severe on the right side and moderate to severe on the left side with reported constant and 11 chronic hand numbness, tingling and weakness.” (Id. at 3.) Second, Plaintiff argues the ALJ 12 erred in finding his April 1, 2022 report inconsistent with his symptom testimony. Plaintiff 13 argues “his condition did worsen following that visit, as evidence[d] by the fact that he lost the 14 job described in that report and this worsening was further documented in the MRI performed in

15 October 2022 and the findings regarding the severity of his Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.” (Id.) 16 Plaintiff also argues his function report indicates “he is unable to complete most activities of 17 daily living independently, but will do his best to help as much as possible.” (Id. at 4.) 18 Neither of Plaintiff’s arguments is sufficient to reverse the ALJ’s finding. Where, as 19 here, an ALJ determines a claimant has presented objective medical evidence establishing 20 underlying impairments that could cause the symptoms alleged, and there is no affirmative 21 evidence of malingering, the ALJ can only discount the claimant’s testimony as to symptom 22 severity by providing “specific, clear, and convincing” reasons supported by substantial 23 evidence. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678–679 (9th Cir. 2017). “The standard isn’t

24 1 whether our court is convinced, but instead whether the ALJ’s rationale is clear enough that it 2 has the power to convince.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499 (9th Cir. 2022). 3 The Court finds the ALJ had “specific, clear, and convincing” reasons to find Plaintiff 4 unreliable. First, the ALJ had “specific, clear, and convincing” reasons to find Plaintiff’s

5 testimony inconsistent with Dr. Henegan’s findings. Dr. Henegan was permitted to provide an 6 opinion of Plaintiff based on a physical examination and the ALJ was permitted to find 7 Plaintiff’s testimony about his physical abilities inconsistent with Dr. Henegan’s physical 8 examination of Plaintiff. See Haislip v. Astrue, 316 Fed. App’x. 538, 540 (9th Cir. 2008) 9 (identifying “physical exam” as a possible basis on which to base a medical opinion).3 10 Moreover, even if the ALJ relied only on Dr. Vogelgesang’s report, Plaintiff does not address the 11 ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff declined multiple treatment plans Dr. Vogelgesang believed would 12 be effective. (AR 26.) An ALJ may find “evidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to 13 discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 14 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

15 Second, Plaintiff’s claim his testimony is consistent with a deteriorating condition is 16 unavailing. Even if Plaintiff’s condition has gotten worse over the years, it does not negate 17 inconsistencies in how Plaintiff reported initial symptoms. The ALJ provided “specific, clear, 18 and convincing” reasons to find Plaintiff’s self-reports inconsistent. First, the ALJ identified an 19 inconsistency between Plaintiff’s claim he required his wife’s assistance at home in 20 approximately mid-2021 (three and a half years before December 2024) and Plaintiff’s April 1, 21 2022 answer of “I could do these myself” in response to whether was able to perform “[b]athing, 22

23 3 While Dr. Henegan did not consider the MRI, the ALJ did note the MRI in his decision. (AR 23.) 24 1 toileting, and dressing.” (AR 25, 323.) Second, the ALJ identified an inconsistency between 2 Plaintiff’s statement he spent his last days of work laying down 80% of the time and his report 3 only ten days prior to his last day of work that he could do “[n]ormal work.” (AR 25, 323.) 4 Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff’s testimony unreliable. The ALJ

5 identified “specific, clear, and convincing” reasons to find Plaintiff’s testimony inconsistent with 6 medical examinations and Plaintiff’s own prior reports. 7 B. Zachary Sparer’s Opinion 8 ALJs must consider every medical opinion in the record and evaluate each opinion’s 9 persuasiveness, with the two most important factors being “supportability” and “consistency.” 10 Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2022); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). Supportability 11 concerns how a medical source supports a medical opinion with relevant evidence, while 12 consistency concerns how a medical opinion is consistent with other evidence from medical and 13 nonmedical sources. See id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1), (c)(2). To find a medical expert’s 14 opinion not credible, “[u]nder the revised regulations, an ALJ need only provide ‘an explanation

15 supported by substantial evidence.’” Kitchen v. Kijakazi, 82 F.4th 732, 740 (9th Cir. 2023) 16 (quoting Woods, 32 F.4th at 792).4 17 In May 2024, Sparer found Plaintiff’s condition “would interfere with prolonged 18 standing, walking, or sitting upright, use of either upper extremity for reaching, holding, 19

20 4While Sparer is not an “acceptable medical source” for diagnosing certain conditions, Sparer’s report may not be entirely discredited because of his credentials. Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 21 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A]n ALJ must consider the opinions of medical providers who are not within the definition of ‘acceptable medical sources[,]’” and “may give less deference to 22 ‘other sources’ only if the ALJ gives reasons germane to each witness for doing so.”); Putz v. Astrue, 371 Fed. App’x 801, 803 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (“According to Social Security 23 Ruling 99–2p, the ALJ should ‘carefully consider’ information provided by treating naturopaths.”). 24 1 handling, or fingering, and/or would require that [Plaintiff] rest or recline at times during the 2 day.” (AR 359.) Sparer also found Plaintiff “could be expected to experience pain or fatigue 3 severe enough to interfere with attention, concentration and persisting at tasks” for 30% or more 4 of the day. (AR 359–360.) Sparer found Plaintiff would be able to sit upright and stand “[l]ess

5 than 1 hour” during an eight-hour workday and would need to recline between two and four 6 hours of the workday. (AR 360.) Sparer also found Plaintiff would “less than occasionally” be 7 able to use either upper extremity for lifting and manipulating, either hand for fingering, or either 8 arm for forward reaching. (AR 361.) Sparer concluded Plaintiff would have “absenteeism of 3 9 or more days per month on a more probable than not basis” had he “attempted even sedentary 10 work since his alleged onset date of 4/10/2022 on a full time regular and sustained basis,” noting 11 he expected “such a prolonged schedule would likely result in a severe flare.” (AR 361.) 12 The ALJ found Sparer’s report “not persuasive” and “lack[ing] support.” (AR 28.) The 13 ALJ found a lack of support for Sparer’s opinions because “his opinions are based on the 14 claimant’s reports, not medical signs or findings.” (AR 28.) The ALJ also found Sparer’s report

15 was “inconsistent with the other records which show that the claimant [had] good strength in his 16 upper and lower extremities except” certain limitations like decreased grip strength, decreased 17 sensation in the upper extremities, diffuse decreased sensation of the right arm, difficulty with 18 transitions from sitting to standing and standing to walking, decreased range of motion, and an 19 “antalgic gait.” (AR 28.) 20 Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in evaluating Sparer’s opinions. (Dkt. No. 11 at 4.) 21 Plaintiff argues, “[o]ne of the reasons [why the ALJ rejected the opinions] is that they are based, 22 at least in part on the statements of the Plaintiff. However, for the reasons explained above, the 23 Plaintiff’s testimony is credible and supported by objective imaging.” (Id.) Plaintiff also argues

24 1 the ALJ’s conclusion that “the opinion is inconsistent with findings that the Plaintiff has normal 2 strength in his upper extremities” conflates “pain with retained strength, as one can have good 3 strength for one-time movements, but pain inhibits the claimant’s ability to sustain movements or 4 activities.” (Id.)5

5 Plaintiff’s defenses of Sparer’s report are unavailing. First, “[i]f a treating provider’s 6 opinions are based ‘to a large extent’ on an applicant’s self-reports and not on clinical evidence, 7 and the ALJ finds the applicant not credible, the ALJ may discount the treating provider’s 8 opinion.” Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The ALJ, 9 after finding Sparer’s report “repeatedly mentions that his opinions are based on the claimant’s 10 reports,” found the report unpersuasive. (AR 28.) Plaintiff does not rebut that Sparer relied on 11 Plaintiff’s own reports. And, as discussed supra, the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff’s 12 testimony unreliable. Accordingly, the ALJ provided an “explanation supported by substantial 13 evidence” for finding Sparer’s report unpersuasive. 14 Finally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in finding Sparer’s conclusion that Plaintiff could

15 not work without significant limitation inconsistent with other findings that Plaintiff showed 16 “good strength.” (Dkt. No. 11 at 4.) But other medical reports directly contradict Sparer’s 17 conclusion. Dr. Stanley S “opined that the claimant could perform work at a sedentary 18 exertional level with lifting and carrying 10 pounds occasionally and frequently [] sitting, 19 20

21 5 Plaintiff also notes other experts found certain limitations and states “[i]t is unclear in what way the ALJ finds these findings contradict” Sparer’s report. (Dkt. No. 11 at 4.) But the ALJ did not 22 conclude Sparer’s result was inconsistent with these limitations identified by other experts. Rather, the ALJ concluded, while all experts identify Plaintiff has certain limitations, Sparer’s 23 conclusion about the impacts on Plaintiff’s ability to work is inconsistent with the conclusion of other experts. 24 1 standing, and walking for six hours in an eight-hour workday.” (AR 27.)6 Plaintiff does not 2 challenge the legitimacy of Dr. Stanley S's report. 3 “When presented with conflicting medical opinions, the ALJ must determine credibility 4 and resolve the conflict.” Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195. The ALJ here was presented with a conflict

5 between Dr. Stanley S and Sparer. The ALJ concluded Dr. Stanley S’s report was “well- 6 supported” and “consistent with the treatment records,” while Sparer’s was based only “on the 7 claimant’s reports” and “inconsistent with the other records.” (AR 27–28.) As identified supra, 8 the ALJ provided a legitimate “explanation supported by substantial evidence” to find Sparer’s 9 report not credible because it was based on the self-reports of a claimant found unreliable. 10 Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in finding Dr. Stanley S’s report persuasive and Sparer’s 11 unpersuasive. 12 IV CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED. 14

15 Dated this 23rd day of March, 2026. 16 a 17 David G. Estudillo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22

6 The ALJ also commented on reports from Dr. Vogelgesang, Dr. Henegan, the Department of 23 Veterans’ Affairs, and Donna Pierce Wible. (AR 27–28.) Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s analysis of any of these other reports. 24