Tennance B. v. Frank Bisignano

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington reviews the denial of Plaintiff Tennance B.’s application for Title XVI Social Security benefits. The court rejects challenges to the ALJ’s evaluation of symptom testimony and certain medical opinions, but finds harmful error because the ALJ failed to address medical opinions from Dick Moen, M.S.W., under the applicable regulations. The court reverses the Commissioner’s decision and remands for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The ALJ did not reversibly err in rejecting Plaintiff's symptom testimony because the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence, including inconsistency with the medical record, improvement with treatment and abstinence, treatment noncompliance or relapse, and daily activities inconsistent with a totally disabling impairment.
2. The ALJ did not reversibly err in finding portions of Thomas Genthe's and David T. Morgen's opinions unpersuasive because the ALJ addressed supportability and consistency and gave reasons supported by substantial evidence, including improvement with treatment, failure to satisfy the durational requirement, and reliance on discounted subjective reports or incomplete records.
3. The ALJ committed harmful legal error by failing to address Dick Moen's medical opinion and explain its supportability and consistency under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c.
4. Remand for an immediate award of benefits was not warranted because it was not clear that the ALJ would be required to find Plaintiff disabled if Moen's opinion were credited.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ gave legally sufficient, specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Plaintiff's symptom testimony.
2. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions of Thomas Genthe, Ph.D., and David T. Morgen, Ph.D., under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c.
3. Whether the ALJ erred by failing to expressly evaluate Dick Moen's medical opinion and explain its supportability and consistency.
4. Whether the case should be remanded for an award of benefits under the credit-as-true rule or for further administrative proceedings.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded