Hussen v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:22-cv-00687

Plaintiff applied for DIB in July 2017, alleging disability from June 1, 2011; date last insured March 31, 2016. Administrative denials led to an ALJ hearing in December 2020; ALJ found not disabled and Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found lumbar degenerative disc disease severe at step two but did not list diabetes or diabetic neuropathy as severe impairments.
Plaintiff’s PCP, Dr. Michael Lippman, completed two DSHS-form opinions in 2016 limiting Plaintiff to sedentary work or less for limited periods.
ALJ rejected Dr. Lippman’s opinions as unpersuasive, citing that the doctor did not cite supporting medical records and that the opinions were inconsistent with the longitudinal record.
District court found the ALJ erred in evaluating supportability and consistency of Dr. Lippman’s opinions because the ALJ failed to consider contemporaneous treating notes showing significant back pain and functional limits and relied on unrelated ER records; remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred at step two by excluding diabetes/diabetic neuropathy as severe	Diabetes and neuropathy appear in the record and State agency consultants listed diabetes as severe	Record lacks evidence these conditions caused ongoing workplace limitations	No reversible error; claimant failed to show these conditions caused significant functional limits during adjudicated period
Whether ALJ properly evaluated treating physician Dr. Lippman’s opinions	ALJ improperly rejected opinions for lack of cited records; treatment notes and attached ROM testing support the opinions; ALJ’s “essentially able to function physically” finding is vague	ALJ found opinions unsupported and inconsistent with the longitudinal record	Reversed: ALJ erred—failed to assess supportability using treating notes and cherry-picked evidence; must reassess persuasiveness of Dr. Lippman’s opinions on remand
Whether RFC finding (light work) is supported by substantial evidence	RFC conflicts with Dr. Lippman’s opinions and other opinions were rejected, so RFC is unsupported	ALJ relied on the record to find capacity for light work	Remanded: RFC must be reconsidered after proper evaluation of Dr. Lippman’s opinions

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (explaining step-two threshold for severity)
Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785 (ALJ must support consistency and supportability findings with substantial evidence)
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (treating provider opinions evaluated by reference to treatment notes and record support)