Sally J. W. v. Commissioner of Social Security

No. 3:25-cv-05512-GJL (W.D. Wash. Jan. 12, 2026) · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · January 12, 2026 · No. 3:25-cv-05512-GJL

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying Sally J. W.’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The court held that the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated the medical opinions and Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The matter was affirmed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Holdings

  1. The ALJ properly rejected the consultants' proposed occasional-reaching limitation because the limitation was not sufficiently supported by the record and was inconsistent with the lack of documented reaching difficulty, right-arm pain, weakness, or range-of-motion deficits during the relevant period.
  2. The ALJ properly found Dr. Levine's opinion unpersuasive because it was unsupported by the examination and inconsistent with the longitudinal medical evidence.
  3. The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Plaintiff's testimony about her reaching ability.
  4. Any error in the ALJ's consideration of Plaintiff's daily activities was harmless because substantial evidence independently supported the ALJ's evaluation of Plaintiff's testimony and the ultimate disability determination.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the opinions of the state agency medical consultants and Dr. Seymour Levine under the post-March 2017 medical-opinion regulations.
  2. Whether the ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the state agency consultants' proposed occasional-reaching limitation.
  3. Whether the ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Plaintiff's subjective testimony concerning her right-arm reaching limitations.
  4. Whether any error in the ALJ's consideration of Plaintiff's daily activities was harmless.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (14)

  • Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995)(limited)
  • Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Diedrich v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2017)(distinguished)
  • Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Stiffler v. O'Malley, 102 F.4th 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 494 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…