David G. S. v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05405
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DAVID G. S., 8 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C25-5405-BAT 9 v. ORDER AFFIRMING THE 10 COMMISSIONER AND DISMISSING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE 11 Defendant. 12

13 Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of his applications for Supplemental Security Income 14 and Disability Insurance Benefits. He contends the ALJ misevaluated the medical evidence and 15 his testimony and incorrectly determined residual functional capacity (RFC). Dkt. 12 at 1. For 16 the reasons below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision and DISMISSES the 17 case with prejudice. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff is currently 44 years old, attended some college, and has worked as a program 20 aide and mail carrier. Tr. 40, 62-63, 818. Plaintiff applied for Title II Disability Insurance 21 Benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income in January and June of 2022, respectively, 22 alleging disability as of December 31, 2021. Tr. 20. Both applications were denied initially and 23 upon reconsideration. Id. After conducting a hearing, ALJ Lawrence Lee found Plaintiff not 1 disabled in a January 30, 2024 decision. Tr. 20-37. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s 2 request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Tr. 1-6. 3 THE ALJ’S DECISION 4 The ALJ found Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged

5 onset date; Plaintiff’s type 1 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, history of deep vein 6 thrombosis on anticoagulation therapy with chronic edema, and obesity are severe impairments; 7 these impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of a listed impairment, Tr. 23-27; 8 Plaintiff retains the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but must never 9 work at unprotected heights and must change positions between sitting and standing every hour 10 for 5-10 minutes without being off task, Tr. 27; Plaintiff cannot perform his past relevant work 11 but as there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can 12 perform, he is not disabled. Tr. 34-35. 13 DISCUSSION 14 The Court will reverse the ALJ’s decision only if it is not supported by substantial

15 evidence in the record as a whole or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard. Molina v. 16 Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ’s decision may not be reversed on account 17 of an error that is harmless. Id. at 1111. The Court may neither reweigh evidence nor substitute 18 its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 19 2002). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Court must 20 uphold that of the Commissioner. Id. 21 Plaintiff contends the ALJ misevaluated the medical evidence and his testimony, leading 22 to a deficient RFC determination and erroneous step five findings. Dkt. 12 at 1-2. 23 A. Medical Evidence 1 Plaintiff contends the ALJ misevaluated the opinions of Kacie Hamreus, PA-C, Derek 2 Leinenbach, M.D., Reginald Adkisson, Ph.D., and the prior administrative medical findings of 3 Susan Clifford, M.D., and Prianka Gerrish, M.D. Dkt. 12 at 2-6. 4 The ALJ considers the persuasiveness of medical opinions using five factors

5 (supportability, consistency, relationship with the claimant, specialization, and others), but 6 supportability and consistency are the most important factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2), (c) 7 (2017); 416.920c(b)(2), (c) (2017). The ALJ must explain how he or she considered 8 supportability and consistency but need not explain how he considered other factors. Id. 9 Supportability concerns how a medical source supports their opinion with relevant medical 10 evidence; consistency concerns how a medical opinion is consistent with other evidence from 11 medical and non-medical sources. Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2022). 12 An ALJ cannot reject a doctor’s opinion as unsupported or inconsistent without providing 13 an explanation supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 792. Conclusions alone are insufficient – 14 “an ALJ can satisfy the ‘substantial evidence’ requirement by ‘setting out a detailed and

15 thorough summary of the facts and conflicting evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and 16 making findings.’” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Reddick v. 17 Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998)). 18 1. Kacie Hamreus, PA-C 19 Ms. Hamreus, a non-examining physician’s assistant, reviewed three records and opined 20 Plaintiff was limited to sedentary work with moderate postural and motor skill restrictions in 21 April 2022. Tr. 800. Ms. Hamreus assessed Plaintiff’s diabetes, polyneuropathy, and deep vein 22 thrombosis as marked (severity rating 4). Tr. 801. The ALJ found Ms. Hamreus’s opinion 23 unpersuasive. Tr. 33. 1 First, the ALJ noted two of the three records reviewed by Ms. Hamreus were from 2011 2 and 2012 and remote from the relevant period of disability. Id. Evidence predating the alleged 3 period of disability is of limited relevance and is thus neither significant nor probative. 4 Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 1155, 1165 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Burkett v.

5 Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 547, 551 (9th Cir. 2018). The ALJ reasonably found Ms. Hamreus’s 6 opinion less persuasive for being based on such evidence.1 7 The remaining record reviewed by Ms. Hamreus addresses an acute and isolated episode 8 of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) which occurred approximately three months before the opinion 9 was written. Tr. 799. The ALJ found records post-dating Ms. Hamreus’s opinion showed 10 Plaintiff’s DVT had improved and no longer affected Plaintiff’s functioning, despite 11 experiencing occasional edema. Tr. 34. Indeed, at Plaintiff’s most recent medical visit in August 12 2023, he reported to his provider that but for occasional swelling, he did not seem to be having 13 symptoms anymore. Tr. 824. Evidence of improvement is a valid reason to discount a medical 14 opinion. Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 601 (9th Cir. 1999).

15 The ALJ also found Ms. Hamreus’s opined motor skill restrictions inconsistent with 16 reports of normal gait, strength, and range of motion throughout the relevant period in addition to 17 normal upper extremity testing during a consultative examination in 2022. Tr. 33-34. The ALJ 18 reasonably found these normal findings inconsistent with Ms. Hamreus’s limitations. See Hailey 19 P. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2025 WL 1568118, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2025) (recognizing 20

1 The ALJ stated “[s]upport for the assessment is not at issue, as Ms. Hamreus did not examine 21 the claimant but simply reviewed the referenced records.” Tr. 34. However, the relevance of evidence relied upon by a medical source is a supportability consideration. See Woods, 32 F.4th 22 at 791-92. Thus, though not articulated as such, the ALJ considered the supportability of Ms. Hamreus’s opinion in finding it unpersuasive. See Phillips v. Bisignano, 2025 WL 3090746, at 23 *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025) (noting the ALJ questioned supportability of a medical opinion where it pre-dated the relevant disability period). 1 discrepancies between severe limitations and normal findings in strength, range of motion, gait, 2 and station). 3 Plaintiff argues his continuing edema supports the limitation to sedentary work opined by 4 Ms. Hamreus. Dkt. 12 at 2-3. This argument “fails to engage in any meaningful manner with the

5 reasons and record citations provided by the ALJ with respect to the challenged evidence.” 6 Andrew H. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2025 WL 2930930, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 15, 2025). 7 Simply asserting a symptom supports the limitations opined by Ms. Hamreus without addressing 8 the specific reasons provided by the ALJ for discounting her opinion does not establish harmful 9 error. The Court accordingly will not disturb the ALJ’s assessment of Ms. Hamreus’s opinion. 10 2. Derek Leinenbach, M.D. 11 Dr. Leinenbach performed a consultative examination on October 6, 2022, and opined 12 Plaintiff can stand/walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, occasionally balance, and can never 13 work at unprotected heights due to peripheral neuropathy. Tr. 814-15. The ALJ found Dr. 14 Leinenbach’s opinion partially persuasive because it was supported by his unremarkable clinical

15 findings and consistent with the record as a whole. Tr. 32. However, the ALJ found it “more 16 reasonable to assess no specific standing/walking limitations but to find the claimant must be 17 able to change positions between sitting and standing every hour for 5-10 minutes[.]” Id. The 18 ALJ also rejected Dr. Leinenbach’s assessed balancing limitations because Plaintiff’s gait was 19 stable, he could walk on his heels and toes, could squat without assistance, had a negative 20 Romberg test, and his proprioception was intact. Tr. 32. 21 Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by engaging in lay speculation about Plaintiff’s limitations 22 and, “it is more reasonable to fully accept [Plaintiff’s] testimony about his actual edema-related 23 symptoms and limitations[.]” Dkt. 12 at 3. Assuming without deciding the ALJ erred in rejecting 1 some of Dr. Leinenbach’s limitations for his own, Plaintiff has failed to establish such error was 2 harmful because the ultimate disability determination would not have changed even if the ALJ 3 fully adopted Dr. Leinenbach’s opinion. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1122 (an error is harmless 4 where it is inconsequential to the ALJ’s ultimate nondisability determination).

5 At the hearing, the vocational expert opined Plaintiff could work as a hand packager 6 (medium), subassembler (light), or routing clerk (light). Tr. 77. A limitation to 6 hours of 7 standing/walking in an 8-hour workday is consistent with the requirements of light and medium 8 work, SSR 83-10 at *6, and none of these jobs require more than occasional balancing. See 9 Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) 920.587-018 (packager, hand); 729.684-054 10 (subassembler); 222.687-022 (routing clerk). Thus, Plaintiff could still perform the identified 11 jobs with an RFC fully incorporating Dr. Leinenbach’s limitations and the ALJ’s ultimate 12 nondisability determination would not be disturbed. 13 Plaintiff’s assertion it would be “more reasonable” to fully accept his testimony is 14 unpersuasive. However reasonable Plaintiff’s interpretation of the evidence may be, “[w]here the

15 evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which support’s the ALJ’s 16 decision, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 954. Nothing Plaintiff has 17 presented undermines the reasonableness of the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Leinenbach’s opinion 18 and the Court accordingly upholds it. 19 3. Reginald Adkisson, Ph.D. 20 Dr. Adkisson conducted a psychological evaluation of Plaintiff on October 15, 2022. Tr. 21 817-21. Dr. Adkisson diagnosed major depressive disorder and, despite mild limitations in 22 adaption and understanding and memory, found that Plaintiff’s prognosis was good for 23 behavioral health and the ability to sustain employment. Tr. 820-21. The ALJ found Dr. 1 Adkisson’s opinion persuasive because it was supported by his clinical findings and consistent 2 with the record as a whole. Tr. 26. Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred contending Dr. Adkisson’s 3 opinion was inconsistent with his own examination findings because his opinion “does not 4 account for the functional effects of his findings of impaired memory and concentration.” Dkt.

5 12 at 4. 6 Dr. Adkisson opined Plaintiff was mildly limited in the area of understanding and 7 memory, but Plaintiff presented with functional memory management for the completion of 8 essential tasks and to maintain gainful employment. Tr. 821. During the mental status 9 examination, Dr. Adkisson noted Plaintiff had fair memory for recent and remote events. Tr. 10 819. Although Plaintiff was unable to remember any of three objects after five minutes, he could 11 recall a past event of playing football in high school. Id. Plaintiff incorrectly completed a 12 forward digit span and refused to attempt a backwards digit span. Id. Plaintiff does not explain, 13 and the Court cannot discern, how these findings are inconsistent with Dr. Adkisson’s opinion. 14 Dr. Adkisson opined Plaintiff was able to concentrate and persist to complete essential

15 tasks and maintain gainful employment but noted Plaintiff “made minimal efforts to persist 16 secondary to a lack of interest to complete certain evaluation tasks.” Tr. 821. On examination, 17 Plaintiff refused to complete serial threes or computational tasks but was able to spell the word 18 “world” correctly forwards and backwards, follow a three-step command, and did not display 19 difficulty in following the conversation. Tr. 819-20. Dr. Adkisson therefore made no findings of 20 impaired concentration, which is consistent with his opinion Plaintiff had no limitations in this 21 area. Plaintiff’s argument the ALJ failed to account for such nonexistent findings therefore fails. 22 4. Other Medical Evidence 23 1 Plaintiff summarizes various treatment notes and concludes such evidence undermines 2 the ALJ’s rationale for rejecting his testimony about his edema-related limitations and fatigue. 3 Dkt. 12 at 4-6. Summaries of evidence unaccompanied by analysis or legal argument do not 4 demonstrate harmful error. See Putz v. Kijakazi, 2022 WL 6943095, at *2 (9th Cir. Oct. 12,

5 2022) (noting where plaintiff “lists numerous clinical findings, unaccompanied by argument, 6 intended to corroborate testimony the ALJ discounted; any argument based on these findings is 7 waived”). 8 5. Prior Administrative Medical Opinions 9 In April 2022, state agency medical consultant Susan Clifford, M.D., found Plaintiff 10 could occasionally lift/carry 50 pounds and frequently lift/carry 20 pounds; stand/walk for 6 11 hours in an 8-hour workday; sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; and frequently climb ramps, 12 stairs, ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. Tr. 139-41. Upon reconsideration in October 2022, Prianka 13 Gerrish, M.D., opined Plaintiff could occasionally lift/carry 20 pounds and frequently lift/carry 14 10 pounds; stand/walk for 6-hours in an 8-hour workday; sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday;

15 occasionally climb ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; occasionally kneel and crouch; 16 and needed to avoid even moderate exposure to hazards such as machinery and heights. Tr. 154- 17 55. 18 The ALJ found the prior administrative findings unpersuasive because they were 19 inconsistent with the record which showed consistently normal gait, strength, and range of 20 motion and an ability to balance despite dulled sensation in the bilateral ankles and feet. Tr. 33. 21 Plaintiff argues that contrary to the ALJ’s analysis, the evidence shows he is more limited than 22 he was found to be by Dr. Clifford and Dr. Gerrish. Dkt. 12 at 6. Plaintiff’s general assertion, 23 absent further explanation, is insufficient for judicial review. Indep. Towers of Wash. v. 1 Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We require contentions to be accompanied by 2 reasons.”). 3 Essentially, Plaintiff’s arguments present an alternative interpretation of the medical 4 evidence in a light more favorable to his claims. However, Plaintiff has failed to show reversible

5 error in the ALJ’s equally rational interpretation, and “[w]hen the evidence can rationally be 6 interpreted in more than one way, the court must uphold the [ALJ’s] decision.” Ahearn v. Saul, 7 988 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459 (9th 8 Cir. 2001)). 9 6. Plaintiff’s Symptom Testimony 10 Plaintiff testified he could not work because of diabetic neuropathy and chronic edema. 11 He stated he will have numbness and tingling in his lower body that sometimes gets bad. Tr. 56. 12 When he has bouts of severe edema, he stated it can be hard to walk because his legs will feel 13 very swollen and it will take a few days for the swelling to go down, and wearing compression 14 stockings doesn’t always help. Tr. 57. Plaintiff testified his edema is triggered by sitting down a

15 lot and not being active, and he tries to combat it by elevating his legs. Tr. 59. He estimated his 16 edema gets bad about once per month Tr. 60. When asked by the ALJ whether he has tried 17 looking for another job, Plaintiff stated he could not find a job because he doesn’t have a vehicle 18 and doesn’t have the skills for online jobs. Tr. 61-62. 19 Plaintiff also testified since he got COVID, he feels like his energy is limited. Tr. 65. He 20 estimated on a typical day during normal work hours, he spends an average of 2-4 hours laying 21 down and resting because of fatigue and pain and swelling in his legs. Tr. 72-73. Plaintiff stated 22 when he tries to stand for too long his lower back starts aching and his legs get tired. Tr. 70. He 23 estimated he could stand for a maximum of two hours before he would need to sit down for five 1 to ten minutes. Tr. 70-71. When asked if he could complete an 8-hour workday split into 2-hour 2 blocks with rest, he was doubtful, explaining if he was standing and working, he would be using 3 more energy. Id. Plaintiff testified he also has difficulties sitting in a chair for long periods of 4 time if it is unpadded, and he must move around a little restore his circulation. Tr. 67-68.

5 Plaintiff also testified he struggles with numbness in his hands that comes and goes which 6 sometimes causes him to drop things. Tr. 74. 7 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s impairments could reasonably be expected to cause his 8 symptoms and did not find malingering. Tr. 28. The ALJ was thus required to provide clear and 9 convincing reasons to discount his testimony. Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 10 2001). “General findings are insufficient; rather, an ALJ must identify what testimony is not 11 credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 12 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1996). In other words, an ALJ’s credibility finding must be “sufficiently 13 specific to allow a reviewing court to conclude the adjudicator rejected the claimant’s testimony 14 on permissible grounds and did not arbitrarily discredit a claimant’s testimony regarding pain.”

15 Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir. 2015). 16 Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s evaluation of his testimony was tainted by his improper 17 evaluation of the medical evidence. Dkt. 12 at 7. This argument fails to establish error because 18 the ALJ properly evaluated the medical evidence, as discussed above. 19 Plaintiff further argues the ALJ erred by providing a selective summary of the medical 20 evidence before finding his RFC determination was consistent with the record. Dkt. 12 at 7-8 21 (citing Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 489). The Court disagrees. Here, the ALJ summarized the 22 medical evidence and Plaintiff’s allegations and stated specifically what evidence undermined 23 his testimony. Tr. 28-32. “The ALJ’s explanation for [his] assessment of [Plaintiff’s] testimony 1 was thus more than a single general statement that the claimant’s statements are not credible and 2 is sufficient to allow appellate review.” Nadon v. Bisignano, 145 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 3 2025) (distinguishing Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 493). 4 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting

5 effects of his symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical record. Tr. 28. Plaintiff 6 contends this statement shows the ALJ “misappl[ied] the objective evidence test.” Dkt. 12 at 7. 7 Plaintiff asserts that once he showed he had medical impairments that could reasonably be 8 expected to cause some degree of his symptoms and limitations, the ALJ could not reject his 9 testimony based solely on whether objective evidence supports the degree of limitation alleged. 10 Id. While a lack of supporting objective medical evidence cannot be the sole reason an ALJ 11 discounts a claimant’s testimony, it is a relevant factor the ALJ can consider in his analysis. 12 Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). And “[w]hen objective medical 13 evidence is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may indeed weigh it 14 as undercutting such testimony.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 498 (9th Cir. 2022).

15 The ALJ noted Plaintiff frequently denied fatigue at medical visits and never told his 16 providers he had to lie down during the day, despite his testimony that he needed to lie down for 17 several hours per day due to fatigue. Tr. 31. Plaintiff asserts this is not a convincing reason to 18 reject his testimony. Dkt. 12 at 8. This conclusory assertion fails to establish the ALJ erred. 19 Moreover, a claimant’s failure to report symptoms to providers is a valid basis to find the 20 claimant’s symptom allegations unreliable. Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 972-73 (9th Cir. 21 2003); see also Foote v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2017 WL 6940704, at *16 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 21, 22 2017) (aff’d sub nom Foote v. Berryhill, 747 F. App’x 636 (9th Cir. 2019)) (upholding ALJ’s 23 rejection of testimony where plaintiff rarely reported his need to lie down during the day to his 1 providers). Thus, the ALJ could reasonably conclude Plaintiff’s failure to report his symptoms 2 undermined his claims of fatigue. 3 The ALJ explained no exertional, postural, or environmental limitations were established 4 (but for the limitation regarding unprotected heights) because Plaintiff rarely reported pain and

5 consistently displayed normal strength, gait, and range of motion. Tr. 30-31. The ALJ also found 6 there was insufficient evidence supporting the need for Plaintiff to elevate his legs because 7 Plaintiff only mentioned needing to do so at one appointment, and his provider did not endorse 8 the practice or comment on it in any way. Tr. 31. Plaintiff argues these were not clear and 9 convincing reasons for rejecting his testimony. Dkt. 12 at 8-9. Again, such conclusory assertions 10 fail to demonstrate error in the ALJ’s analysis. And, as mentioned, an ALJ may discount 11 claimant testimony where it is inconsistent with the medical evidence and may also consider a 12 lack of supporting medical evidence. See Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498; Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857. The 13 ALJ could rationally find that frequent normal findings warranted no exertional, postural, or 14 environmental limitations and he was permitted to consider the lack of evidence supporting

15 Plaintiff’s need to elevate his legs. 16 Plaintiff also provides a four-page summary of his hearing testimony and concludes the 17 ALJ improperly rejected this testimony, which shows he is more limited than the ALJ found him 18 to be. Dkt. 12 at 10-14. Summaries of evidence and conclusory statements unaccompanied by 19 analysis or legal arguments are insufficient to demonstrate harmful error. Sekiya v. Gates, 508 20 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007). 21 In sum, the ALJ gave multiple clear and convincing reasons, based on substantial 22 evidence in the record, for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony, and Plaintiff has failed to show 23 harmful legal error in the ALJ’s assessment. 1 7. Residual Functional Capacity 2 Plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred in formulating the hypothetical for the VE by failing to 3 include all of Plaintiff’s limitations. Dkt. 12 at 14. This argument stems from other alleged errors 4 the Court has rejected and therefore fails. St. Clair v. Saul, 776 F. App’x 447, 448 (9th Cir. 2019)

5 (mem.). 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and this case is 8 DISMISSED with prejudice. 9 DATED this 8th day of December, 2025. 10 A 11 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23