1:25-cv-03008
E.D. Wash.Aug 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Gregory B., applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging disability onset as of December 1, 2013, due to multiple severe medical impairments including fibromyalgia and hemochromatosis.
- Plaintiff’s claim was initially denied, and after several administrative hearings and remands (including by the Appeals Council and district court), the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled for the period at issue.
- Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Carl Olden, submitted a detailed opinion supporting significant functional limitations and the need for flexible or intermittent work.
- At the most recent hearing, Plaintiff was found to have obtained sedentary, highly accommodated work after September 2022, but maintained disability for the period prior.
- The ALJ discounted Dr. Olden’s opinion, relying on alleged inconsistencies with the broader medical record and notes from non-treating, non-examining consultants.
- The District Court reversed the ALJ’s decision, remanding for an immediate award of benefits after determining the ALJ did not provide legitimate reasons for rejecting the treating doctor’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of treating physician’s opinion | Dr. Olden’s opinion should be given great weight as it is well-supported by clinical evidence and consistent with the record. | ALJ properly discounted Dr. Olden’s opinion as inconsistent with his notes and overall medical record. | ALJ erred; Dr. Olden’s opinion not properly weighed; failure to provide legitimate reasons. |
| Reliance on non-examining consultants | Non-examining doctors’ opinions are entitled to little weight, especially over treating physician. | Non-examining consultant reviews are adequate for substantial evidence. | Non-examining consultants’ opinions are insufficient to overcome treating physician. |
| Sufficiency of ALJ’s rationale | ALJ selectively cited evidence, ignoring probative evidence of limitations and absences. | ALJ considered the totality of the record and provided sufficient explanation. | ALJ’s rationale was not supported by substantial evidence; failed to consider whole record. |
| Remedy | Record is fully developed and supports a finding of disability; immediate award of benefits is warranted. | Remand for further proceedings, not immediate benefits. | Immediate award of benefits ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keyes v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir. 1990) (defining substantial gainful activity standard)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 108 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (burden-shifting at Step Five of the sequential process)
- Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1992) (standard of review for ALJ factual findings)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (substantial evidence standard)
- Batson v. Barnhart, 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for review of ALJ's denial when evidence is subject to interpretation)
- Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2004) (treating physician opinions given greatest weight)
- Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2017) (standards for rejecting treating physician opinions in Social Security cases)