Fain v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Fain v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMarch 10, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-05622

StatusUnknown

This text of Fain v. Commissioner of Social Security (Fain v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fain v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 ANDREA FAIN, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C24-5622-MLP 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 In this case, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not evaluating the lay witness 15 statements (dkt # 15 at 17), while the Commissioner contends that ALJs are not required to 16 articulate their consideration of nonmedical source statements (dkt. # 20 at 16). Notably, on 17 March 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that: 18 The revised Social Security regulations are clearly irreconcilable with our 19 precedent requiring “germane reasons” to reject lay witness testimony. Thus, our “germane reasons” precedent no longer applies to claims filed on or after March 20 27, 2017, and in considering such claims, ALJs need not explain their reasons for discounting evidence from nonmedical sources, such as the claimant’s friends and 21 family. 22 Hudnall v. Dudek, 2025 WL 729701, at *3 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2025). 23 // 1 The Court finds that supplemental briefing would be beneficial in this case. Accordingly, 2 on or before March 17, 2025, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a supplemental brief, no longer 3 than five pages, addressing the effect of the Hudnall decision on the ALJ’s consideration of the 4 lay witness testimony.

5 In turn, on or before March 24, 2025, the Commissioner is ORDERED to file a 6 supplemental brief, no longer than five pages, responding to the arguments raised in the 7 Plaintiff’s supplemental briefing. Both parties are required to support their arguments with 8 citations to relevant legal authorities and the record when addressing these issues. 9 The Clerk is directed to note this matter on the Court’s calendar for March 24, 2025. 10 Dated this 10th day of March, 2025. 11 A 12 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 ANDREA FAIN, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C24-5622-MLP 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 In this case, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not evaluating the lay witness 15 statements (dkt # 15 at 17), while the Commissioner contends that ALJs are not required to 16 articulate their consideration of nonmedical source statements (dkt. # 20 at 16). Notably, on 17 March 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that: 18 The revised Social Security regulations are clearly irreconcilable with our 19 precedent requiring “germane reasons” to reject lay witness testimony. Thus, our “germane reasons” precedent no longer applies to claims filed on or after March 20 27, 2017, and in considering such claims, ALJs need not explain their reasons for discounting evidence from nonmedical sources, such as the claimant’s friends and 21 family. 22 Hudnall v. Dudek, 2025 WL 729701, at *3 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2025). 23 // 1 The Court finds that supplemental briefing would be beneficial in this case. Accordingly, 2 on or before March 17, 2025, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a supplemental brief, no longer 3 than five pages, addressing the effect of the Hudnall decision on the ALJ’s consideration of the 4 lay witness testimony.

5 In turn, on or before March 24, 2025, the Commissioner is ORDERED to file a 6 supplemental brief, no longer than five pages, responding to the arguments raised in the 7 Plaintiff’s supplemental briefing. Both parties are required to support their arguments with 8 citations to relevant legal authorities and the record when addressing these issues. 9 The Clerk is directed to note this matter on the Court’s calendar for March 24, 2025. 10 Dated this 10th day of March, 2025. 11 A 12 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fain v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fain-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2025.