Cook v. Bisignano

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-03024
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE 3 EASTER U N . S D . I S D T I R S I T C R T I C O T F C W O A U S R H T I NGTON 4 Sep 22, 2025 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 CHRISSY C., No. 1:25-CV-3024-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER AFFIRMING THE 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL DECISION OF COMMISSIONER 14 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action seeking juridical review of the Commissioner of 18 Social Security’s final decision denying her application for social security benefits. 19 Plaintiff is represented by D. James Tree. The Commissioner is represented by 20 Benjamin Groebner and Brian M. Donovan. Pending before the Court are 21 Plaintiff’s Opening Brief, ECF No. 9, and the Commissioner’s Brief, ECF No. 11. 22 After reviewing the administrative record and briefs filed by the parties, the 23 Court is now fully informed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court affirms the 24 Commissioner’s decision. 25 I. Jurisdiction 26 On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance 27 benefits, alleging disability beginning March 18, 2020. Plaintiff’s application was 28 denied initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff requested a hearing and on 1 February 6, 2024, a telephonic hearing was held. Plaintiff appeared and testified 2 before an ALJ, with the assistance of her counsel, Justin Jerez. John MacLeod, 3 vocational expert, also participated. The ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled. 4 Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council and the Appeals Council 5 denied the request on January 10, 2025. The Appeals Council’s denial of review 6 makes the ALJ’s decision the “final decision” of the Commissioner of Social 7 Security, which this Court is permitted to review. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 8 1383(c)(1)(3). 9 Plaintiff filed a timely appeal with the United States District Court for the 10 Eastern District of Washington on February 13, 2025. ECF No. 1. The matter is 11 before this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 12 II. Five-Step Sequential Evaluation Process 13 The Social Security Act defines disability as the “inability to engage in any 14 substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or 15 mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or 16 can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.” 42 17 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant shall be determined to be 18 under a disability only if their impairments are of such severity that the claimant is 19 not only unable to do their previous work, but cannot, considering claimant’s age, 20 education, and work experiences, engage in any other substantial gainful work that 21 exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). The 22 Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to 23 determine whether a person is disabled in the statute. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 24 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). 25 Step One: Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activities? 20 26 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). Substantial gainful activity is work 27 done for pay and requires compensation above the statutory minimum. Keyes v. 28 Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 1990). If the claimant is engaged in 1 substantial activity, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If 2 the claimant is not, the ALJ proceeds to step two. 3 Step Two: Does the claimant have a medically-severe impairment or 4 combination of impairments? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A 5 severe impairment is one that lasted or must be expected to last for at least 12 6 months and must be proven through objective medical evidence. Id. §§ 404.1509, 7 416.909. If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of 8 impairments, the disability claim is denied. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 9 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the impairment is severe, the evaluation proceeds to the third 10 step. 11 Step Three: Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal one of the listed 12 impairments acknowledged by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude 13 substantial gainful activity? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If 14 the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is 15 conclusively presumed to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the 16 impairment is not one conclusively presumed to be disabling, the evaluation 17 proceeds to the fourth step. 18 Before considering to the fourth step, the ALJ must first determine the 19 claimant’s residual functional capacity. An individual’s residual functional 20 capacity is their ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained 21 basis despite limitations from their impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 22 416.945(a)(1). The residual functional capacity is relevant to both the fourth and 23 fifth steps of the analysis. 24 Step Four: Does the impairment prevent the claimant from performing work 25 they have performed in the past? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 26 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is able to perform their previous work, they are 27 not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the claimant cannot perform 28 this work, the evaluation proceeds to the fifth and final step. 1 Step Five: Is the claimant able to perform other work in the national 2 economy in view of their age, education, and work experience? 20 C.F.R. §§ 3 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). The initial burden of proof rests upon the 4 claimant to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to disability benefits. Tackett 5 v. Apfel, 108 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). This burden is met once a claimant 6 establishes that a physical or mental impairment prevents him from engaging in her 7 previous occupation. Id. At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to 8 show that the claimant can perform other substantial gainful activity. Id. 9 III. Standard of Review 10 The Commissioner’s determination will be set aside only when the ALJ’s 11 findings are based on legal error or are not supported by substantial evidence in the 12 record as a whole. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 13 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla,” 14 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971), but “less than a preponderance,” 15 Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th Cir. 1975). Substantial 16 evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 17 to support a conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. 18 A decision supported by substantial evidence will be set aside if the proper 19 legal standards were not applied in weighing the evidence and making the decision. 20 Brawner v. Secr’y of Health & Human Servs., 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 21 An ALJ is allowed “inconsequential” errors as long as they are immaterial to the 22 ultimate nondisability determination. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 23 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court must uphold the ALJ’s denial of benefits if 24 the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which 25 supports the decision of the administrative law judge. Batson v. Barnhart, 359 F.3d 26 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). It “must consider the entire record as a whole, 27 weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from the 28 Commissioner’s conclusion, and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific 1 quantum of supporting evidence.” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2 2017) (quotation omitted). “If the evidence can support either outcome, the court 3 may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.” Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019. 4 IV. Statement of Facts 5 The facts have been presented in the administrative record, the ALJ’s 6 decision, and the briefs to this Court. Only the most relevant facts are summarized 7 herein. 8 At the hearing, counsel indicated that Plaintiff began work on June 1, 2021, 9 which qualified as substantial gainful activity through the date of the hearing. 10 Plaintiff had worked at Safeway at the start of the COVID 19 pandemic and on 11 March 18, 2020, she stopped work on her doctor’s orders because she was 12 considered a high risk to contract COVID. 13 Plaintiff experiences significant pain in her back. She uses a cane and walker 14 periodically, and when working prior to 2018, she was provided a chair. She 15 suffers from severe asthma and diabetes, as well as chronic sinus infections. She 16 reported that she returned to work at Safeway after she received her COVID 17 vaccinations. 18 V. The ALJ’s Findings 19 The ALJ issued an opinion affirming denial of benefits. AR 101-121. 20 At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful 21 activity since June 1, 2021 through at least February 26, 2024, the date of the 22 ALJ’s opinion, but found there had been a continuous 12-month period during 23 which Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity from May 18, 2020 24 through May 31, 2021. AR 104. 25 At step two, the ALJ identified the following severe impairments: 26 degenerative disc disease, asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, diabetes 27 mellitus, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, PTSD. AR 104. 28 At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 1 combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of 2 the listed impairments. AR 105. Ultimately, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff has a 3 residual function capacity (“RFC”) to perform:

4 light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except that the 5 individual could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The individual could occasionally stoop, 6 kneel, crouch, and crawl. The individual could frequently reach 7 overhead bilaterally. The individual could tolerate occasional exposure to workplace hazards such as unprotected heights and 8 exposed, moving machinery. The individual requires the ability to 9 alternate between sitting and standing at will while remaining on task. The individual uses a single point cane held in the right, dominant, 10 upper extremity while ambulating. The individual could perform 11 simple, routine tasks. The individual requires regular work breaks at 2-hour intervals. 12 AR 107. 13 At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant 14 work as a gas station manager. AR 120. 15 The ALJ found there were other jobs that existed in significant numbers in 16 the national economy that Plaintiff could also perform in the national economy, 17 including marker, sub assembler, electrical parts, and router. Consequently, the 18 ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled from March 18, 2020 through February 26, 19 2024. AR 121. 20 VI. ISSUES 21 1. Did the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s testimony? 22 2. Did the ALJ properly evaluate the medical evidence? 23 VII. Discussion 24 1. Evaluation of Plaintiff’s testimony 25 The ALJ found that while Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments 26 could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged, her statements 27 concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms are not 28 1 fully consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. The 2 ALJ found that during the period at issue, Plaintiff had significant functional 3 limitations, but the treatment record fails to establish more restrictive functioning 4 than outlined in the residual functional capacity. The ALJ found Plaintiff was not 5 unable to work because of her impairments and also found Plaintiff’s reports about 6 her activities supported the residual functional capacity set by the ALJ. 7 The ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s testimony is supported by substantial 8 evidence in the record. For instance, in April of 2020, Plaintiff reported she was 9 looking forward to going back to work and she had gone to Las Vegas to care for a 10 friend; in May 2020, Plaintiff reported she had taken yard waste to the dump a 11 couple of times recently, and told her doctor she was going to return to work if she 12 did not hear from Social Security. 13 2. Evaluation of the Medical Evidence 14 Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in evaluating the opinion of David Fine - PA. 15 Mr. Fine opined that Plaintiff could sit for two hours at a time and four hours in an 16 eight-hour workday, lift and carry 10 pounds occasionally and five pounds 17 frequently, frequently handle, finger, and feel and never squat, kneel, climb, crawl, 18 or balance. The ALJ recognized that Plaintiff’s presentation at the consultative 19 examination supported these limitations, but such limitations were not consistent 20 with the longitudinal evidence of the record. The ALJ noted that shortly after this 21 examination, Plaintiff returned to her work, without any intervening treatments to 22 improve her functioning, or any reports of improved functioning. The ALJ noted 23 that working in her current job would not be possible if she were limited as found 24 by Mr. Fine. The ALJ also found the record failed to support Mr. Fine’s limitations 25 with respect to Plaintiff’s ability to grip, handle, finger and feel frequently. 26 In evaluating medical opinion evidence, the ALJ must consider the 27 persuasiveness of each medical opinion and prior administrative medical finding 28 from medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a) and (b). The ALJ is required to 1 consider multiple factors, including supportability, consistency, the source’s 2 relationship with the claimant, any specialization of the source, and other factors 3 (such as the source’s familiarity with other evidence in the file or an understanding 4 of Social Security's disability program). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(1)-(5). 5 Supportability and consistency of an opinion are the most important factors, 6 and the ALJ must articulate how they considered those factors in determining the 7 persuasiveness of each medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding. 20 8 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2). The ALJ may explain how they considered the other 9 factors, but is not required to do so, except in cases where two or more opinions 10 are equally well-supported and consistent with the record. Id. 11 Supportability and consistency are further explained in the regulations: (1) Supportability. 12 The more relevant the objective medical evidence and 13 supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 14 finding(s), the more persuasive the medical opinions or prior 15 administrative medical finding(s) will be. (2) Consistency. 16 The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior 17 administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim, the more 18 persuasive the medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 19 finding(s) will be. 20 Id. 21 The ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Fine’s opinion is supported and consistent with 22 the longitudinal record. As such, the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Fine’s opinion is 23 supported by substantial evidence. 24 VIII. Conclusion 25 The ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled during the period in 26 question is supported by substantial evidence. 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. For court management purposes, Plaintiff's Opening Brief, ECF No. is DENIED. 2. For court management purposes, the Commissioner’s Brief, ECF No. 5|| 11, is GRANTED. 3. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. 4. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to file this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. 10 DATED this 22nd day of September 2025. I l on Soba 13 ast □□ fa 14 Stan Bastian Chief United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF COMMISSIONER ~ 9