Normal v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:25-cv-05011
| W.D. Wash. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Abigail S. N. (formerly Thomas Guest) applied for supplemental security income (SSI) in January 2020, alleging disability from November 21, 2019.
- Plaintiff's claims were denied initially, on reconsideration, and in two hearings before ALJ Lee; the Appeals Council vacated one decision and remanded for a new hearing.
- ALJ Lee's most recent (December 2023) decision found Plaintiff not disabled, listing several severe impairments but concluding plaintiff retained capacity for light work with specific limitations.
- ALJ Lee discounted opinions from two consulting psychologists, Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Morgan, partly due to perceived differences between Washington State and federal disability definitions and severity ratings.
- Plaintiff sought judicial review, challenging the ALJ’s reasoning and the adequacy of step five findings regarding vocational evidence and occupational requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discounting Drs. Wheeler & Morgan's opinions | ALJ misapplied legal standards, improperly relied on an erroneous view of DSHS definition/severity, and failed to support rejection of opinions. | ALJ reasonably discounted opinions as inconsistent with other medical evidence and improvement with conservative treatment. | ALJ erred by discounting opinions on basis of DSHS differences without adequate explanation; not harmless error, requires remand. |
| Use of Activities of Daily Living | ALJ failed to specify how daily activities contradicted expert-assessed limitations. | Activities showed plaintiff performed beyond limits set by psychologists, justifying discounting their opinions. | ALJ erred by not explaining inconsistency between activities and medical opinion; reliance on this ground not supported. |
| Step Five (VOC testimony vs. DOT requirements) | ALJ failed to resolve conflict between jobs identified by V.E. and DOT regarding production pace restrictions. | No clear production pace requirements in DOT; no obvious or apparent conflict exists. | No error; no obvious conflict regarding production pace to resolve at step five. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (sets standard for harmless error and reviewing ALJ reasoning in disability cases)
- Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard for court review of ALJ decisions, including requirement to consider entire record)
- Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (ALJ’s responsibility to resolve conflicting medical opinions)
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (requirement for ALJ to set forth reasoning for meaningful review)
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ’s duty to ask V.E. about conflicts with DOT)
- Gutierrez v. Colvin, 844 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2016) (conflict with DOT must be obvious or apparent to require resolution)
- Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (harmless error standard in social security cases)
- Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785 (9th Cir. 2022) (supportability and consistency are key factors in weighing medical opinion evidence)