Ashley C. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Ashley C. · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington · March 9, 2026 · No. No. 4:25-CV-05121-RLP

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington reverses the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of supplemental security income and remands for further administrative proceedings. The court concludes that the ALJ failed to provide an adequate analysis of the claimant’s symptom testimony and Dr. Thomas Genthe’s medical opinion, including the required consideration of supportability and consistency. The court declines to remand for an immediate award of benefits.

Holdings

  1. The ALJ erred by rejecting Plaintiff's symptom testimony through a generalized summary of the record and conclusory finding without clearly identifying which symptoms were inconsistent with which evidence. When there is objective evidence of an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms and no evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting the testimony.
  2. The ALJ inadequately evaluated Dr. Genthe's opinion because the reasons given for finding it unpersuasive did not adequately address the opinion's supportability and consistency. On remand, the ALJ must evaluate all medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings and explain the assessment of both supportability and consistency.
  3. The record did not warrant an immediate award of benefits under the credit-as-true rule. Because outstanding issues, conflicting evidence, and ambiguities remained—including evidence that Plaintiff might improve with treatment—the proper remedy was remand for further administrative proceedings.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the ALJ provided legally sufficient, specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff's symptom testimony.
  2. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the supportability and consistency of Dr. Genthe's medical opinion under the governing Social Security regulations.
  3. Whether the record required remand for an immediate award of benefits rather than further administrative proceedings.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (13)

  • Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Beltran v. Astrue, 700 F.3d 386, 389 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 489 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1015, 1017-18, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Douglas H. v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2025 WL 3001816, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 27, 2025)(followed)
  • Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 682 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…