Issacsen v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:24-cv-06030

Plaintiff Aaron J. I. applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in March 2022, alleging disability.
A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in November 2023, who found Plaintiff not disabled in January 2024.
The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final.
Plaintiff sought judicial review in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The central dispute involved whether a specific limitation — requiring a five-minute break every hour — precluded Plaintiff from performing unskilled work identified at step five by the ALJ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a five-minute-per-hour break limitation is inconsistent with unskilled work under POMS guidance	Cites POMS provisions, arguing that such breaks are incompatible with the mental demands of unskilled work	POMS is nonbinding; ALJ can use informed judgment and VE's testimony	POMS is not judicially enforceable, and ALJ properly relied on VE’s testimony
Whether use of the five-minute-breaks limitation constitutes consideration of a "reasonable accommodation," which is improper at step five	Limitation is a reasonable accommodation, which should not be considered at step five	Limitation was part of RFC, not a special accommodation; step five jobs allowed such breaks	ALJ acted properly, as the limitation did not require special accommodation beyond normal job requirements
Sufficiency of the Vocational Expert’s (VE) testimony regarding the impact of the break limitation	Testimony indicated the limitation might be irregular and would require accommodation	Testimony showed breaks fell within normal allowable breaks in the workplace	VE's testimony supported ALJ's finding; decision affirmed
Whether the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error	Cumulative arguments above; alleged legal error in RFC assessment and step five analysis	Substantial evidence and legal standards were met	No reversible error; denial of benefits affirmed

Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2003) (POMS is nonbinding and does not impose judicially enforceable duties)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for review of ALJ decisions)
Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (VE testimony can be sufficient to support step five findings)
Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (POMS and internal agency manuals are not binding substantive law)
Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld when evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation)