1 FILED IN THE 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 2 Oct 14, 2025
3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
5 MATTHEW H.,1 No. 1:25-cv-3056-EFS 6 Plaintiff, 7 ORDER REVERSING THE v. ALJ’S DENIAL OF BENEFITS, 8 AND REMANDING FOR FRANK BISIGNANO, MORE PROCEEDINGS 9 Commissioner of Social Security,
10 Defendant.
11 Plaintiff Matthew H. asks the Court to reverse the 12 Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Title 16 benefits. In 13 response, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ’s denial of benefits is 14 supported by substantial evidence. As is explained below, remand for 15 further proceedings is necessary because the ALJ erred by not fully 16 17
18 1 For privacy reasons, Plaintiff is referred to by first name and last 19 initial or as “Plaintiff.” See LCivR 5.2(c). 20 1 evaluating the impact of Plaintiff’s fatigue, other symptoms, and
2 medication side-effects relating to his congestive heart failure and 3 chronic kidney disease. 4 I. Background
5 On October 11, 2021, Plaintiff applied for benefits under Title 6 16.2 After the agency denied benefits, Plaintiff requested a hearing 7 before an ALJ.3 ALJ Cecilia LaCara held a telephone hearing in
8 November 2023, during which Plaintiff appeared without 9 representation.4 Both Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. 10 Plaintiff testified that he is unable to work due to chronic kidney
11 disease (stage 4) and systolic heart failure.5 He stated that he had been 12 taking medications for two years for his conditions, with minor 13 adjustments, and that the medications cause tiredness, dizziness, and
14 15
16 2 AR 157–67. 17 3 AR 89–100. 18 4 AR 47–69. 19 5 AR 54. 20 1 the need to go the bathroom often—about every 30 minutes.6 He said
2 he experiences lack of feeling in his fingers and toes, nausea, stomach 3 cramps, fatigue, coldness, and pain in his back and kidneys.7 He stated 4 he is unable to ride in a vehicle for long periods of time and that,
5 although he has a driver’s license, he does not drive because of his 6 dizziness.8 He testified that he lives with his mother, who typically 7 does all of the chores, including taking care of the dog and cat, and who
8 drives him around, unless he uses the bus.9 He said he sometimes does 9 dishes and picks up but mostly he spends the day in bed.10 He testified 10 that Tylenol does not adequately address his pain, especially during
11 12 13
15 6 AR 55–57, 67. 16 7 AR 55–56. 17 8 AR 58. 18 9 AR 58, 62. 19 10 AR 59. 20 1 the night when he gets body pain, joint pain, and restlessness.11
2 Plaintiff stated that he last used drugs and alcohol two years prior.12 3 In his function reports, Plaintiff stated that his restlessness, pain 4 in his back, medications, and using the restroom every hour affects his
5 sleep.13 He noted that he has issues lifting, standing, walking, stair 6 climbing, completing tasks, and concentrating, and that his family 7 drives him everywhere due to his fatigue and nausea.14 He wrote that
8 he could walk for 10 minutes before needing to stop and rest.15 9 After the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits.16 10 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms were “not entirely
11 consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the 12
13 11 AR 62. 14 12 AR 60–61. 15 13 AR 217, 245. 16 14 AR 221, 248. 17 15 AR 221, 250. 18 16 AR 28–46. Per 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)–(g), a five-step evaluation 19 determines whether a claimant is disabled. 20 1 record.”17 The ALJ considered the lay statement from Plaintiff’s
2 mother.18 As to the medical opinions, the ALJ found: 3 • The findings of state agency medical consultants Lewis Cylus, 4 MD, and Ian Cowan, MD, moderately persuasive.
5 • The findings of state agency mental consultant, Pamela Kraft, 6 PhD, generally persuasive. 7 • The opinion of psychological consultative examiner, Kathryn
8 Johnson, PhD, moderately persuasive.19 9 As to the sequential disability analysis, the ALJ found: 10 • Step one: Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
11 activity since October 11, 2021, the application date. 12 13
15 17 AR 37. As recommended by the Ninth Circuit in Smartt v. Kijakazi, 16 the ALJ should replace the phrase “not entirely consistent” with 17 “inconsistent.” 53 F. 4th 489, 499, n.2 (9th Cir. 2022). 18 18 AR 40, 225–32. 19 19 AR 39–40. 20 1 • Step two: Plaintiff had the following medically determinable
2 severe impairments: chronic kidney disease, congestive heart 3 failure, personality disorder, depression, and anxiety. 4 • Step three: Plaintiff did not have an impairment or
5 combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the 6 severity of one of the listed impairments. 7 • RFC: Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work except:
8 [Plaintiff] can stand, and/or walk for up to 4 hours and sit for up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday with customary 9 breaks. He is capable of occasional climbing of ramps or stairs, but no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. He 10 can perform simple, routine tasks and have superficial interaction with coworkers. 11 • Step four: Plaintiff has no past relevant work. 12 • Step five: considering Plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and work 13 history, Plaintiff could perform work that existed in significant 14 numbers in the national economy, such as storage rental clerk, 15 office helper, and outside deliverer.20 16 17 18
19 20 AR 31–42. 20 1 Plaintiff timely requested review of the ALJ’s decision by the
2 Appeals Council and now this Court.21 3 II. Standard of Review 4 The ALJ’s decision is reversed “only if it is not supported by
5 substantial evidence or is based on legal error” and such error 6 impacted the nondisability determination.22 Substantial evidence is 7 “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such
8 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 9 10
11 12
13 21 AR 6–11. ECF No. 1. 14 22 Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). See 42 U.S.C. § 15 405(g); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012), 16 superseded on other grounds by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a) (recognizing that 17 the court may not reverse an ALJ decision due to a harmless error— 18 one that “is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability 19 determination”). 20 1 support a conclusion.”23 The court looks to the entire record to
2 determine if substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings.24 3 III. Analysis 4 Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s findings as to the medical opinions and
5 Plaintiff’s symptom reports are not supported by substantial evidence 6 and that the RFC failed to include each of the opined limitations and 7 reported symptoms. In response, the Commissioner argues that the
8 ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, particularly 9 because Plaintiff’s conditions improved when he stopped abusing 10 substances and when he complied with medical treatment. As is
12 23 Hill, 698 F.3d at 1159 (quoting Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 13 980 (9th Cir. 1997)). 14 24 Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, 32 F4th 843, 851 (9th Cir. 2022). See also 15 Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) (requiring 16 the court to consider the entire record, not simply the evidence cited by 17 the ALJ or the parties) (cleaned up); Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 18 (8th Cir. 1998) (“An ALJ’s failure to cite specific evidence does not 19 indicate that such evidence was not considered[.]”). 20 1 explained below, the ALJ’s errors when evaluating the medical
2 opinions impacted the no-disability finding. 3 A. Medical Opinions: Plaintiff establishes consequential 4 error.
5 Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to fully incorporate Dr. Kraft’s and 6 Dr. Johnson’s opinions into the RFC. In response, the Commissioner 7 highlights that neither of these providers offered an opinion that
8 supports a finding of disability. Contrary to the Commissioner’s 9 position, Dr. Kraft opined a social-interaction limitation that was not 10 fully adopted by the ALJ—and the ALJ failed to explain why such was
11 not part of the RFC. Moreover, the ALJ’s analysis fails to meaningfully 12 evaluate the concern expressed by both Dr. Kraft and Dr. Johnson that 13 Plaintiff’s ability to maintain adequate pace or persist on tasks may be
14 limited due to his heart and kidney conditions. 15 1. Standard 16 The ALJ must consider and articulate how persuasive she found
17 each medical opinion and prior administrative medical finding, 18 including whether the medical opinion or finding was consistent with 19
20 1 and supported by the record.25 The factors for evaluating the
2 persuasiveness of medical opinions include, but are not limited to, 3 supportability, consistency, relationship with the claimant, and 4 specialization.26 Supportability and consistency are the most important
5 factors.27 When considering the ALJ’s findings, the Court is 6 constrained to the reasons and supporting explanation offered by the 7 ALJ.28
8 2. Dr. Johnson 9 On November 23, 2022, Dr. Johnson conducted a video 10 psychological diagnostic interview, which included reviewing medical
11 records from October 5, 2021 and May 25, 2022, interviewing Plaintiff, 12 and conducting a mental status examination.29 The October 2021 13
14 25 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a)–(c); Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 792 (9th 15 Cir. 2022). 16 26 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(1)–(5). 17 27 Id. § 416.920c(b)(2). 18 28 See Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2014). 19 29 AR 1548–52. 20 1 record was a discharge summary from Evergreen Health, identifying
2 that Plaintiff had edema in his lower extremities, was conversant and 3 interactive on one occasion but also had poor concentration or fell 4 asleep during another interaction, and had a systemic murmur, and
5 recommended that Plaintiff follow-up with primary care, nephrology, 6 cardiology, and the methadone clinic, and should only engage in gentle 7 activity as tolerated.30 The May 2022 Tri-Cities Treatment Center
8 record was an admission report from the methadone treatment.31 9 During the interview with Dr. Johnson, Plaintiff stated that he 10 perceived his kidney and heart diseases were his primary barriers to
11 work, although he also felt anxious, restless, and depressed due to his 12 physical health conditions.32 Plaintiff was cooperative, was distant as 13 the examination began but warmed up a bit during the hour-long
14 interview, and had adequate eye contact and responses to questions, 15 16
17 30 AR 1148–58. 18 31 AR 1535–38. 19 32 AR 1548. 20 1 although his responses were quite brief.33 He had a bland affect with
2 generally euthymic mood, fluent speech, linear and goal-directed 3 thoughts, good insight as to his condition, and full orientation.34 He 4 recalled 2 of 3 objects after 5 minutes, and his ability to concentrate
5 was adequate for the evaluation although he reported longstanding 6 difficulty with attention and concentration.35 He shared that his typical 7 day involved mostly resting, including watching television or being on
8 his phone, as he is always tired and takes a lot of medications.36 He 9 reported that his mother drives him to the methadone clinic three 10 times per week.37 He stated that he does not stay in contact with
11 anyone except his family.38 12 13
14 33 AR 1550. 15 34 Id. 16 35 Id. 17 36 AR 1551. 18 37 Id. 19 38 Id. 20 1 Dr. Johnson diagnosed Plaintiff with opioid use disorder and
2 alcohol use disorder in sustained remission, unspecified anxiety 3 disorder, and general personality disorder.39 She wrote: 4 The claimant’s physical health conditions appear to pose the primary barrier to work, though psychological and 5 personality factors are certainly problematic as well. He has a history of academic problems, lack of any meaningful 6 work history, and an extensive history of drug addiction and homelessness. It is unclear to what degree his drug use 7 impacted mood over the years. The claimant’s ability to function is severely limited, and he has no reasonable 8 means of caring for his basic needs.
9 The claimant should be able to understand and follow basic instructions, though he would be unable to manage more 10 complex tasks. Given his extremely low energy level, it is unlikely that he would be able to maintain an adequate 11 pace or persist on tasks over time. His ability to interact with others would be impacted by his anxiety and mood 12 symptoms. He is unable to tolerate the stressors inherent in most workplace settings.40 13 Dr. Johnson recommended that a payee be appointed to help Plaintiff 14 manage his funds given his extensive substance abuse history.41 15 16
17 39 AR 1551. 18 40 AR 1551. 19 41 AR 1551. 20 1 The ALJ found Dr. Johnson’s opinion moderately persuasive
2 because “[i]t is supported by her consultative examination, but not fully 3 consistent with the claimant’s other medical evidence, including lack of 4 treatment and generally benign presentation to treating providers.”42
5 The ALJ’s analysis, which focuses on Plaintiff’s lack of treatment 6 for anxiety and depression and Plaintiff’s generally benign mental- 7 health presentation to treating providers during the relevant period,
8 fails to consider that Dr. Johnson’s opined limitations were based in 9 large measure on Plaintiff’s fatigue and low energy level related to his 10 physical conditions. For instance, Plaintiff’s extremely low energy level
11 was the basis for Dr. Johnson’s opinion that Plaintiff was unlikely to 12 maintain adequate pace or persistence, whereas his anxiety and 13 depression symptoms were the basis for Dr. Johnson’s opinion that
14 Plaintiff’s ability to interact with others was impacted. The ALJ’s 15 failure to fairly consider that Dr. Johnson found Plaintiff’s low energy 16 resulted from his physical conditions consequentially impacted the
17 ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Johnson’s opinion. This error’s impact is 18
19 42 AR 40. 20 1 highlighted by the fact that Dr. Kraft also recognized the need to
2 consider how Plaintiff’s physical-health conditions impacted his ability 3 to sustain work and thus deferred to the physical RFC to determine 4 Plaintiff’s work limitations, as is discussed more below.43
5 3. Dr. Kraft 6 On December 9, 2022, Dr. Kraft reviewed the medical evidence of 7 record.44 Dr. Kraft categorized the severe medically determinable
8 mental-health impairments as personality disorder; depressive, 9 bipolar, and related disorders; and anxiety and obsessive-compulsive 10 disorders. She found that Plaintiff had moderate limitations in each of
11 the Category B Criteria of the Listings and found Plaintiff’s abilities to: 12 • understand and remember detailed instructions to be 13 markedly limited.
14 • carry out detailed instructions; maintain attention and 15 concentration for extended periods; complete a normal 16 workday and workweek without interruptions from
18 43 AR 86. 19 44 AR 79–88. 20 1 psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a consistent
2 pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest 3 periods; interact appropriately with the general public; and set 4 realistic goals or make plans independently of others to be
5 moderately limited.45 6 In support of these limitations, Dr. Kraft wrote: 7 • “Recent exams reflect claimant’s statement he is feeling very well, he has EF 46%, and fairly stable chronic kidney 8 disease that’s better than listing. Claimant does have a lowered stress tolerance, but is able to attend consultative 9 examinations and other exams, relay his medical symptoms and understand and retain medical advice.”46 10 • “Capable of [simple, routine tasks] but would have 11 difficulty understanding and retaining information pertaining to [complex, detailed tasks] due to mood.”47 12 • “Able to perform simple tasks with his physical limits with 13 intermittent disruption of [concentration, persistence, and place] due to anxiety and depression. Ability to sustain 14 deferred to physical RFC as [claimant] has not been diagnosed with depression, personality disorder does not 15 16
17 45 AR 86–87. 18 46 AR 84 (cleaned up). 19 47 AR 86. 20 1 meet listing level severity and anxiety only periodically interferes with function.”48 2 • “Capable of superficial social interactions with others in the 3 workplace.”49
4 • “Will need assistance with work related goals.”50
5 The ALJ found Dr. Kraft’s opinion: 6 generally persuasive, but the need for assistance with goals is not indicated given the claimant’s independent handling 7 of his care and apparent reliance on his mother seemingly not entirely based on need (he can navigate public 8 transportation, attend appointments, play video games, etc. without assistance). Otherwise, this opinion is supported by 9 review of the record and consistent with the consultative mental exam and no mental health treatment.51 10 First, the ALJ fails to meaningfully explain why Dr. Kraft’s 11 opinion “is supported by review of the record.”52 The supportability 12 factor looks to what “relevant . . .objective medical evidence and 13 14
15 48 AR 86. 16 49 AR 87. 17 50 AR 87. 18 51 AR 39. 19 52 AR 39. 20 1 supporting explanations presented by a medical source” support her
2 opinion.”53 The ALJ’s boilerplate finding is insufficient to afford 3 meaningful review as to the supportability factor.54 4 Second, although the ALJ finds that Dr. Kraft’s and
5 Dr. Johnson’s opinions are consistent with each other and therefore 6
7 53 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(1) (“The more relevant the objective medical 8 evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source 9 are to support his or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative 10 medical finding(s), the more persuasive the medical opinions or prior 11 administrative medical finding(s) will be.”). 12 54 See Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996); Embrey v. 13 Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988) (requiring the ALJ to 14 identify the evidence supporting the found conflict to permit the court 15 to meaningfully review the ALJ’s finding); Blakes v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 16 565, 569 (7th Cir. 2003) (“We require the ALJ to build an accurate and 17 logical bridge from the evidence to her conclusions so that we may 18 afford the claimant meaningful review of the SSA’s ultimate 19 findings.”). 20 1 this consistency is a reason to find them persuasive, the ALJ does not
2 consider that both medical professionals were concerned about the 3 impact that Plaintiff’s cardiac and kidney impairments have on his 4 ability to sustain work, when considered along with his anxiety and
5 depression. The ALJ failed to meaningfully discuss whether Plaintiff’s 6 fatigue resulting from his cardiac and kidney impairments impede his 7 ability to persist, along with his anxiety, which as Dr. Kraft opined,
8 intermittently disrupts his ability to perform simple tasks. 9 Third, even though the ALJ’s analysis indicates that she accepted 10 Dr. Kraft’s social-interaction opinions—that Plaintiff should have
11 superficial social interactions with others in the workplace and was 12 moderately impaired as to the ability to interact appropriately with the 13 general public—the only limitation that the ALJ added to the RFC was
14 restricting Plaintiff to superficial interaction with coworkers.55 The 15 ALJ failed to explain why the RFC did not also limit Plaintiff’s 16
17 18
19 55 AR 36, 39, 87. 20 1 interactions with the public.56 This error is consequential because one
2 of the identified occupations by the vocational expert—storage rental 3 clerk—requires the worker to interact with customers to perform many 4 of the tasks.57
5 4. Dr. Cowan 6 Although Plaintiff’s briefing focused on the ALJ’s evaluation of 7 Dr. Johnson’s and Dr. Kraft’s opinions, it is necessary to also discuss
8 Dr. Cowan’s opinion and the ALJ’s evaluation of such to appreciate the 9 ALJ’s error in not fully evaluating the interplay between Plaintiff’s 10
11 56 It is error for an ALJ to simultaneously claim to incorporate a 12 medical opinion and yet, without explanation, omit relevant limitations 13 set forth in that medical opinion. See Soc. Sec. Rlg. 96-8p, 1996 WL 14 374184 at *7 (Jul. 2, 1996); See also Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. 15 Admin., 807 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he ALJ is responsible 16 for translating and incorporating clinical findings into a succinct 17 RFC.”). 18 57 https://occupationalinfo.org/29/295367026.html (DOT 295.367-026: 19 storage rental clerk). 20 1 physical impairments, mental impairments, and medication side-
2 effects when assessing whether Plaintiff can sustain fulltime work. 3 Dr. Cowan reviewed the medical evidence related to Plaintiff’s 4 physical impairments on December 19, 2022, after Dr. Kraft’s review.58
5 Dr. Cowan wrote “overall, fatigue seems to be the primary limiting 6 symptom. This along with chronic kidney disease-III and chronic heart 7 failure supports reducing the initial review’s light RFC to sedentary
8 with occasional stairs and ladders.”59 Dr. Cowan also wrote, 9 “Claimant’s current sedentary RFC at reconsideration recognizes both 10 his improved organ function as well as his current remaining limitation
11 which include easy fatigability and decreased exercise tolerance, 12 largely resulting from chronic kidney disease.”60 Even though 13 Dr. Cowan limited Plaintiff to a sedentary RFC and wrote “sed” as to
14 15 16
17 58 AR 86–88. 18 59 AR 81. 19 60 AR 85 (cleaned up). 20 1 the “Subject” for the Physical RFC,61 the listed lifting/carrying weights
2 of 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently are lifting/carrying 3 weights for light work, not sedentary work. The ALJ utilized these 4 light-work amounts when crafting the RFC, rather than using the
5 sedentary-work amounts of 10 pounds occasionally and small/light 6 objects frequently. 7 This discrepancy was not explained by either Dr. Cowan or the
8 ALJ. Each of the three identified occupations are light work that allow 9 for up to six hours of sitting; however, the vocational expert did not 10 discuss whether Plaintiff could perform such jobs if the lifting/carrying
11 requirements were reduced to sedentary lifting/carrying requirements. 12 What amounts for lifting/carrying Plaintiff is capable of must be 13
14 61 AR 84–85; see also AR 87 (“Based on the seven strength factors of the 15 physical RFC (lifting/carrying, standing, walking, sitting, pushing, and 16 pulling, the individual demonstrates the maximum sustained work 17 capability of the following: Sedentary.”). Soc. Sec. Rlg. 83-10: Titles II 18 and XVI: Determining Capability to do Other Work – the Medical- 19 Vocational Rules of Appendix 2. 20 1 answered on remand. Notably, Plaintiff’s treating provider Dr. Chu
2 wrote in October 2021 that future work limitations will depend on 3 serial evaluations and titration of medications over time.62 Similarly, 4 during that same period, the discharge paperwork allowed “gentle
5 activity as tolerated.”63 6 Furthermore, any improvement in Plaintiff’s chronic heart 7 condition and chronic kidney condition since the alleged onset date
8 must be fairly considered—in that it was slight improvement.64 For 9 instance, although Plaintiff was observed with less edema after June 10 2022, the lab results continued to show that his kidneys were not
11 functioning well: 12 • March 7, 2022: GFR of 25 (severe loss of kidney function).65 13
14 62 AR 1380. 15 63 AR 1148. 16 64 Soc. Sec. Rlg. 18-3p (requiring the prescribed treatment to be 17 expected to restore the individual’s ability to engage in substantial 18 gainful activity). 19 65 AR 1585. 20 1 • April 25, 2022: GFR of 26 (severe loss of kidney function).66
2 • July 15, 2022: GFR of 28 (severe loss of kidney function).67 3 • July 21, 2022: GFR of 24 (severe loss of kidney function).68 4 • November 11, 2022: GFR of 30 (moderate to severe loss of
5 kidney function).69 6 • November 28, 2022: GFR of 31 (moderate to severe loss of 7 kidney function).70
8 Thus, Plaintiff’s kidney function was still significantly impaired. 9 Although Plaintiff’s ejection fraction improved from 35–40% to 46% per 10 the March 2022 echocardiogram, such is still below average, and as a
11 result, Plaintiff was referred for cardiac rehabilitation for chronic 12 systolic heart failure and prescribed several medications for his heart 13 condition, including hydralazine, Furosemide, and Carvedilol, which
15 66 AR 1603. 16 67 AR 1601. 17 68 AR 1595. 18 69 AR 1591. 19 70 AR 1588. 20 1 are known to cause dizziness and/or fatigue.71 Moreover, Plaintiff’s
2 treating provider discussed in November 2022 that Plaintiff needed to 3 preserve his kidney function and reduce cardiovascular risk.72 4 Accordingly, on this record, the ALJ failed to fairly and fully
5 evaluate the interplay between Plaintiff’s physical impairments— 6 impairments which are significant and for which he experienced only 7 some improvement—and his ability to sustain work when considering
8 these physical impairments, the medications he takes, and his anxiety 9 and depression. 10 5. Summary
11 Overall, the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions is not 12 supported by substantial evidence. 13 B. Other Steps: The ALJ must reevaluate on remand.
14 Because the ALJ’s errors when weighing the medical opinions 15 impacted her sequential analysis, the Court does not analyze Plaintiff’s 16 remaining claims. However, it is necessary to mention that one of the
18 71 AR 1530. 19 72 AR 1529–30. 20 1 identified occupations—outside deliverer—required Plaintiff to drive.73
2 Yet, Plaintiff testified that although he has a driver’s license, he does 3 not drive due to nausea, fatigue, and dizziness and instead either gets 4 a ride from his mother or takes the bus. Several of the treatment notes
5 reflect that Plaintiff’s mother was present with him.74 If on remand an 6 occupation is identified that requires driving, the ALJ must evaluate 7 whether Plaintiff can perform that requirement of the occupation.75 In
8 addition, on remand, the ALJ must evaluate Plaintiff’s reported need to 9 use the bathroom every 30 minutes due to a medication side effect and 10
12 73 https://occupationalinfo.org/29/295367026.html (DOT 230.663-010). 13 The occupation of outside deliverer requires the worker to deliver items 14 to business establishments and private homes by foot, bicycle, 15 motorcycle, automobile, or public conveyance. 16 74 See AR 312, 1143–45, 1155, 1297, 1301, 1525, 1554. 17 75 See AR 248, 58; AR 67–68 (The vocational expert testified that 18 Plaintiff would not be able to work as an outside deliverer if he was 19 unable to drive.). 20 1 whether Plaintiff’s bathroom usage is inconsistent with being able to
2 perform fulltime work.76 3 Finally, this record does not contain a physical consultative 4 examination. In addition to obtaining more recent medical records, the
5 Social Security Administration is to give Plaintiff an opportunity to 6 attend a physical consultative examination. 77 This examiner is to be 7
8 76 See SSR 16-3p (allowing the medical source to consider medication 9 side-effects and requiring the ALJ to consider medication side-effects 10 when assessing the claimant’s symptom reports); AR 68 (The 11 vocational expert testified Plaintiff would be unlikely to retain a job if 12 Plaintiff spent so much time in the bathroom that he was getting 80 13 percent or less of the work done.). 14 77 20 C.F.R. § 416.917: 15 If your medical sources cannot or will not give us sufficient medical evidence about your impairment for us to determine 16 whether you are disabled or blind, we may ask you to have one or more physical or mental examinations or tests. We 17 will pay for these examinations. However, we will not pay for any medical examination arranged by you or your 18 representative without our advance approval. If we arrange for the examination or test, we will give you reasonable 19 notice of the date, time, and place the examination or test will be given, and the name of the person or facility who will 20 1 given sufficient longitudinal evidence concerning Plaintiff’s heart and
2 kidney conditions.78 3 IV. Conclusion 4 Because of the ALJ’s consequential errors, Plaintiff’s request for a
5 remand for further proceedings is granted.79 The ALJ is to develop the 6 record and reevaluate—with meaningful articulation and evidentiary 7 support—the sequential process.
8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. The ALJ’s nondisability decision is REVERSED, and this 10 matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social
11 Security for further proceedings pursuant to 12 sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 13
14 do it. We will also give the examiner any necessary 15 background information about your condition.
16 78 The record must clearly identify what medical records the examiner 17 reviewed. 18 79 See Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2018); Garrison 19 v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014). 20 1 2. The Clerk’s Office shall TERM the parties’ briefs, ECF
2 Nos. 8 and 9, enter JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff, and
3 CLOSE the case.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to file this
5 ||order and provide copies to all counsel.
6 DATED this 14* day of October 2025. Lewd few 8 EDWARD F.SHEA Senior United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19
DISPOSITIVE ORDER - 29