Richter v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:24-cv-01457
W.D. Wash.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey R. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) citing disabling ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, with an alleged onset date of March 30, 2021.
- Plaintiff’s claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration; after a hearing, the ALJ found him not disabled, determining he could do light work with several restrictions.
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s rejection of his symptom testimony and the step five finding that he could perform alternative work.
- The ALJ relied on conservatively treated, “stable” symptoms, use of assistive devices, lack of ankylosis on imaging, and daily activities to discount plaintiff’s credibility.
- Plaintiff argued these reasons were unsupported by substantial evidence and that the vocational expert’s testimony was tainted by an incomplete hypothetical.
- The Court found the ALJ erred in evaluating plaintiff’s symptom testimony and activities, and remanded for further proceedings, not for an immediate award of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rejection of Plaintiff’s Testimony About Symptoms | ALJ failed to provide clear/convincing and specific reasons | ALJ cited stable symptoms, conservative treatment, activities | ALJ erred—reasons not clear/convincing or well supported |
| Conservative/Stability of Treatment | Pain treatment with opioids and numerous interventions not “conservative” | Plaintiff’s symptoms stable with conservative treatment | ALJ’s finding of “conservative” treatment not supported |
| Weight of Activities of Daily Living | Activities do not contradict disabling symptom testimony | Plaintiff’s activities inconsistent with alleged limitations | Activities not substantial or clearly inconsistent |
| Step Five & Vocational Expert (VE) Hypothetical | Flawed hypothetical excluded true limitations, so VE testimony improper | VE’s testimony substantial evidence based on ALJ’s RFC | ALJ’s mistake in RFC/Hypothetical made step five finding erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2017) (sets standard for review of ALJ decisions; substantial evidence required)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must consider all evidence and provide reasons for rejecting testimony)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (clear and convincing reasons required to reject symptom testimony)
- Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (objective medical evidence can help assess severity, not existence, of pain)
- Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1989) (claimants need not be utterly incapacitated to be disabled)
- Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2001) (light activities do not necessarily indicate ability to work)
- Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (harmful error standard in disability cases)
- Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (criteria for remand with award of benefits)