1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 Victoria Inman, CASE NO. 24-cv-01448-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING 12 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15
16 This matter comes before the court sua sponte. On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff Victoria 17 Inman filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 18 seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her disability benefits. Dkt. 19 No. 3. On November 25, 2024, the Commissioner filed the “entire record of proceedings relating 20 to this case” that was certified to “constitute a full and accurate transcript” of the proceedings. Dkt. 21 No. 7. 22 A central dispute between the parties is whether the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) who 23 adjudicated Ms. Inman’s claims erroneously rejected Ms. Inman’s allegations of pain as 24 inconsistent with her medical records. See e.g., Dkt No. 11 at 3–4; Dkt No. 13 at 4–5. The ALJ’s 1 decision states that Ms. Inman did not seek “significant treatment for her back problems, despite 2 the extent of debilitation alleged.” Dkt. No. 7-2 at 35. 3 Relevant to this dispute are medical records associated with care provided by surgeon 4 Dr. Viral Patel. See Dkt. No. 11 at 4; Dkt. No. 13 at 5. These records appear incomplete. Dkt. No.
5 13 at 5 (the Government remarking that “notes of follow-up with orthopedic surgeon Viral Patel, 6 M.D., do not appear in the record”). 7 Ms. Inman was referred to Dr. Patel in December 2019 “for surgical consult.” Dkt. No. 7- 8 7 at 561; see also id. at 554. At the same time, she was referred to Dr. James Robinson to explore 9 “non operative treatment options.” Id. at 561; see also id. at 554, 572. On February 11, 2020, Ms. 10 Inman was seen by both Dr. Robinson and Dr. Patel. Dkt. No. 7-7 at 571–91. Dr. Patel remarked 11 that Ms. Inman was “looking for [a] surgical solution” after trying “extensive conservative care,” 12 and his notes indicate that “[f]or now I would like to have MRI L and C spine, CT T and L spine 13 and DEXA scan” before “see[ing] her back once everything is done.” Id. at 575. Julianne Krause, 14 PA-C—whose notes Dr. Patel “reviewed and agree[d] with,” id.—stated that “further planning”
15 would occur once imaging was completed. Id. at 580. On the same day, after discussing the benefits 16 of physical therapy, Dr. Robinson noted that he “need[ed] to confer with Dr. Patel” and “would 17 defer to him on the question of the advisibility of corrective spinal surgery for Ms. Inman.” Id. at 18 575. On March 10, 2020, Ms. Inman had all the ordered scans conducted, and the reports from 19 these scans include numerous findings. See id. at 612–20. 20 Ms. Inman’s records indicate that she was scheduled for a Telemedicine follow-up visit 21 with Dr. Patel on April 23, 2020. Id. at 606. As the Commissioner points out, there are “no such 22 notes in the record” documenting this visit. Dkt. No. 13 at 5. However, the record also does not 23 reflect that the Telemedicine appointment was cancelled. See generally Dkt. No. 7-7 at 604–607.
24 From what the Court can deduce, that seems to be a consequence of when the ALJ retrieved the 1 records from Dr. Patel’s office: the administrative record’s index reflects that the records 2 pertaining to Dr. Patel were obtained from December 10, 2019 to April 7, 2020. See Dkt. No. 7-1 3 at 6. That date range would not have captured notes from Ms. Inman’s Telemedicine visit with Dr. 4 Patel scheduled on April 23, 2020.
5 A similar issue appears to have occurred with Ms. Inman’s physical therapy records. The 6 government states that Ms. Inman did not “follow up” with physical therapy after her initial 7 evaluation, so the “ALJ reasonably concluded” that her “failure to pursue significant treatment . . . 8 undermines her symptom allegations.” No. 13 at 5. While the certified record submitted by the 9 Commissioner includes physical therapy records concerning only one Initial Examination on April 10 6, 2021, see Dkt. No. 7-7 at 1372–74, Ms. Inman testified before the ALJ that she had attended 11 approximately six physical therapy sessions but that “insurance only covered so many visits,” Dkt. 12 No. 7-2 at 116–17. 13 A review of the certified record suggests that, again, the ALJ was missing material portions 14 of Ms. Inman’s medical record that may have corroborated her testimony. For example, Ms. Inman
15 reported to her mental health provider that she had her “last physical therapy” appointment during 16 the week of May 27, 2021. Dkt No. 7-7 at 1071. That statement corresponds with the physical 17 therapist’s initial evaluation, which documented Ms. Inman as having Medicaid Certification from 18 April 6, 2021 to only May 31, 2021. Id. at 1374. Missing records may document additional physical 19 therapy participation, as well as a rationale for why Ms. Inman’s physical therapy treatment 20 concluded, beyond what the ALJ considered when determining that she did not seek “significant 21 treatment for her back problems, despite the extent of debilitation alleged,” Dkt. No. 7-2 at 35. 22 “In Social Security cases the ALJ has a special duty to fully and fairly develop the record 23 and to assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.” Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443
24 (9th Cir. 1983). “This duty exists even when the claimant is represented by counsel.” Id. The ALJ 1 cannot merely remark that a record is incomplete—it must “conduct an appropriate inquiry” when 2 faced with “[a]mbiguous evidence, or the ALJ’s own finding that the record is inadequate.” 3 Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). Reversal and remand is appropriate 4 when the ALJ fails to fully and fairly develop the record. See e.g., Craig H. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-
5 cv-800-AJB(LR), 2023 WL 4679342, at *8–10 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2023) (recommending reversal 6 and remand when obvious gap in the record should have alerted the ALJ to missing records), report 7 and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 5340794 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2023); Michael K. v. Saul, 8 No. 1:18-CV-03165-MKD, 2019 WL 7819554, at *7 (E.D. Wash. July 31, 2019) (reversing and 9 remanding because it was “clear that the ALJ was on notice that Plaintiff’s mental health 10 record . . . was not complete, yet the ALJ did not conduct an appropriate inquiry into the records 11 he identified as missing”). 12 For the reasons laid out above, the Court ORDERS Ms. Inman to submit supplemental 13 briefing within 21 days (October 14, 2025) on whether the certified record filed by the 14 Commissioner, Dkt. No. 7, is missing medical records that would have been consequential to the
15 ALJ’s determination of limitations. See Leach v. Kijakazi, 70 F.4th 1251, 1255 (9th Cir. 2023) 16 (“We may affirm nevertheless if the ALJ’s failure to include all of the claimant’s limitations was 17 harmless.”); Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We 18 have . . . affirmed under the rubric of harmless error where the mistake was nonprejudicial to the 19 claimant or irrelevant to the ALJ’s ultimate disability conclusion.”). The Commissioner may file 20 a response brief 14 days thereafter (October 28, 2025). 21 Finally, the Court notes that the briefing it has received thus far from Ms.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 Victoria Inman, CASE NO. 24-cv-01448-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING 12 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. 15
16 This matter comes before the court sua sponte. On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff Victoria 17 Inman filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 18 seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her disability benefits. Dkt. 19 No. 3. On November 25, 2024, the Commissioner filed the “entire record of proceedings relating 20 to this case” that was certified to “constitute a full and accurate transcript” of the proceedings. Dkt. 21 No. 7. 22 A central dispute between the parties is whether the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) who 23 adjudicated Ms. Inman’s claims erroneously rejected Ms. Inman’s allegations of pain as 24 inconsistent with her medical records. See e.g., Dkt No. 11 at 3–4; Dkt No. 13 at 4–5. The ALJ’s 1 decision states that Ms. Inman did not seek “significant treatment for her back problems, despite 2 the extent of debilitation alleged.” Dkt. No. 7-2 at 35. 3 Relevant to this dispute are medical records associated with care provided by surgeon 4 Dr. Viral Patel. See Dkt. No. 11 at 4; Dkt. No. 13 at 5. These records appear incomplete. Dkt. No.
5 13 at 5 (the Government remarking that “notes of follow-up with orthopedic surgeon Viral Patel, 6 M.D., do not appear in the record”). 7 Ms. Inman was referred to Dr. Patel in December 2019 “for surgical consult.” Dkt. No. 7- 8 7 at 561; see also id. at 554. At the same time, she was referred to Dr. James Robinson to explore 9 “non operative treatment options.” Id. at 561; see also id. at 554, 572. On February 11, 2020, Ms. 10 Inman was seen by both Dr. Robinson and Dr. Patel. Dkt. No. 7-7 at 571–91. Dr. Patel remarked 11 that Ms. Inman was “looking for [a] surgical solution” after trying “extensive conservative care,” 12 and his notes indicate that “[f]or now I would like to have MRI L and C spine, CT T and L spine 13 and DEXA scan” before “see[ing] her back once everything is done.” Id. at 575. Julianne Krause, 14 PA-C—whose notes Dr. Patel “reviewed and agree[d] with,” id.—stated that “further planning”
15 would occur once imaging was completed. Id. at 580. On the same day, after discussing the benefits 16 of physical therapy, Dr. Robinson noted that he “need[ed] to confer with Dr. Patel” and “would 17 defer to him on the question of the advisibility of corrective spinal surgery for Ms. Inman.” Id. at 18 575. On March 10, 2020, Ms. Inman had all the ordered scans conducted, and the reports from 19 these scans include numerous findings. See id. at 612–20. 20 Ms. Inman’s records indicate that she was scheduled for a Telemedicine follow-up visit 21 with Dr. Patel on April 23, 2020. Id. at 606. As the Commissioner points out, there are “no such 22 notes in the record” documenting this visit. Dkt. No. 13 at 5. However, the record also does not 23 reflect that the Telemedicine appointment was cancelled. See generally Dkt. No. 7-7 at 604–607.
24 From what the Court can deduce, that seems to be a consequence of when the ALJ retrieved the 1 records from Dr. Patel’s office: the administrative record’s index reflects that the records 2 pertaining to Dr. Patel were obtained from December 10, 2019 to April 7, 2020. See Dkt. No. 7-1 3 at 6. That date range would not have captured notes from Ms. Inman’s Telemedicine visit with Dr. 4 Patel scheduled on April 23, 2020.
5 A similar issue appears to have occurred with Ms. Inman’s physical therapy records. The 6 government states that Ms. Inman did not “follow up” with physical therapy after her initial 7 evaluation, so the “ALJ reasonably concluded” that her “failure to pursue significant treatment . . . 8 undermines her symptom allegations.” No. 13 at 5. While the certified record submitted by the 9 Commissioner includes physical therapy records concerning only one Initial Examination on April 10 6, 2021, see Dkt. No. 7-7 at 1372–74, Ms. Inman testified before the ALJ that she had attended 11 approximately six physical therapy sessions but that “insurance only covered so many visits,” Dkt. 12 No. 7-2 at 116–17. 13 A review of the certified record suggests that, again, the ALJ was missing material portions 14 of Ms. Inman’s medical record that may have corroborated her testimony. For example, Ms. Inman
15 reported to her mental health provider that she had her “last physical therapy” appointment during 16 the week of May 27, 2021. Dkt No. 7-7 at 1071. That statement corresponds with the physical 17 therapist’s initial evaluation, which documented Ms. Inman as having Medicaid Certification from 18 April 6, 2021 to only May 31, 2021. Id. at 1374. Missing records may document additional physical 19 therapy participation, as well as a rationale for why Ms. Inman’s physical therapy treatment 20 concluded, beyond what the ALJ considered when determining that she did not seek “significant 21 treatment for her back problems, despite the extent of debilitation alleged,” Dkt. No. 7-2 at 35. 22 “In Social Security cases the ALJ has a special duty to fully and fairly develop the record 23 and to assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.” Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443
24 (9th Cir. 1983). “This duty exists even when the claimant is represented by counsel.” Id. The ALJ 1 cannot merely remark that a record is incomplete—it must “conduct an appropriate inquiry” when 2 faced with “[a]mbiguous evidence, or the ALJ’s own finding that the record is inadequate.” 3 Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). Reversal and remand is appropriate 4 when the ALJ fails to fully and fairly develop the record. See e.g., Craig H. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-
5 cv-800-AJB(LR), 2023 WL 4679342, at *8–10 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2023) (recommending reversal 6 and remand when obvious gap in the record should have alerted the ALJ to missing records), report 7 and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 5340794 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2023); Michael K. v. Saul, 8 No. 1:18-CV-03165-MKD, 2019 WL 7819554, at *7 (E.D. Wash. July 31, 2019) (reversing and 9 remanding because it was “clear that the ALJ was on notice that Plaintiff’s mental health 10 record . . . was not complete, yet the ALJ did not conduct an appropriate inquiry into the records 11 he identified as missing”). 12 For the reasons laid out above, the Court ORDERS Ms. Inman to submit supplemental 13 briefing within 21 days (October 14, 2025) on whether the certified record filed by the 14 Commissioner, Dkt. No. 7, is missing medical records that would have been consequential to the
15 ALJ’s determination of limitations. See Leach v. Kijakazi, 70 F.4th 1251, 1255 (9th Cir. 2023) 16 (“We may affirm nevertheless if the ALJ’s failure to include all of the claimant’s limitations was 17 harmless.”); Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We 18 have . . . affirmed under the rubric of harmless error where the mistake was nonprejudicial to the 19 claimant or irrelevant to the ALJ’s ultimate disability conclusion.”). The Commissioner may file 20 a response brief 14 days thereafter (October 28, 2025). 21 Finally, the Court notes that the briefing it has received thus far from Ms. Inman’s counsel 22 has been “skeletal and inadequate.” See Dianna H. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:24-cv-05630- 23 TL, 2025 WL 1355379, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2025) (detailing Mr. Oliver’s lack of diligence
24 and collecting numerous cases where he had been “admonished” by other judges “for similar 1 failures of diligence that have risked prejudicing his clients”). For example, Mr. Oliver provides 2 no legal support for many of his arguments, such as his argument that an applicant need not 3 “‘prove’ the legitimacy of her pain,” or that it constitutes “abuse of the role of an ALJ” to “take[] 4 issue with” Ms. Inman’s lack of significant treatment for her back problems. Dkt. No. 11 at 4. He
5 disputes findings from the ALJ without citing to the ALJ’s decision in many places. See, e.g., id. 6 at 4 (stating that “the ALJ argues that the Plaintiff’s normal range of motion and normal strength 7 discredits the Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her alleged pain” without any supporting citation); 8 id. (stating that “[t]he RFC drafted by the ALJ finds the Plaintiff limited to light work with a 9 sit/stand option due to limitations in the Plaintiff’s ability to stand and walk” without any 10 supporting citation). And his bare-bones argument purporting to defend the opinion of Dr. Gravatt 11 does not even cite to that opinion. Id. at 5. Going forward, the Court expects Mr. Oliver to conform 12 to the standard of practice in this Court. See LCR 83.3. Failure to do so may result in sanctions. 13 See LCRs 11(c), 83.3(c). 14 Dated this 22nd day of September, 2025.
15 A 16 Lauren King United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24