Lorash v. Bisignano

1 Mar 27, 2026 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 REBECCA L.,1 No. 1:25-cv-03131-EFS 7 Plaintiff, ORDER REVERSING THE 8 v. ALJ’S DENIAL OF BENEFITS, AND REMANDING FOR AN 9 FRANK BISIGNANO, AWARD OF BENEFITS 10 Commissioner of Social Security, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff Rebecca L. appeals the denial of benefits by the 14 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The parties agree the ALJ erred 15 when assessing the severe medically determinable impairments, when 16 assessing Plaintiff’s testimony, and when analyzing the medical 17 opinions, but the parties disagree about the appropriate remedy. 18 Plaintiff seeks a remand for payment of benefits, while the 19 20 21 1 To address privacy concerns, the Court refers to Plaintiff by first 22 name and last initial or as “Plaintiff.” See LCivR 5.2(c). 23 1 Commissioner seeks a remand for further proceedings. After reviewing 2 the record and relevant authority, the Court remands the case for an 3 award of benefits. 4 I. Background 5 In February 2021, Plaintiff filed applications for benefits under 6 Title 2 and Title 16, alleging disability due to degenerative disc disease, 7 8 carpal tunnel syndrome, major depressive disorder, anxiety/panic 9 disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post- 10 traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue 11 syndrome, and obesity.2 Plaintiff claimed an onset date of September 12 28, 2020.3 13 Plaintiff’s claims were denied at the initial and reconsideration 14 15 levels.4 Plaintiff appeared with her attorney for a telephonic hearing 16 before ALJ Laura Valente in March 2023.5 Plaintiff testified, and 17 18 2 AR 381, 384-389, 390-398, 655. 19 20 3 AR 384, 390. 21 4 AR 204, 209, 226, 231. 22 5 AR 59-86. 23 1 vocational expert testified.6 In May 2023, ALJ Valente issued a 2 decision denying benefits.7 Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, 3 and the Appeals Council issued an Order remanding the case for 4 further proceedings.8 5 Plaintiff appeared with her attorney in June 2024 for a second 6 hearing before ALJ Valente.9 Plaintiff testified and a vocational expert 7 8 testified.10 In September 2024, the ALJ issued a second decision 9 denying benefits.11 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms were 10 not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and the other 11 evidence.12 As to medical opinions, the ALJ found: 12 13 14 6 Id. 15 7 AR 169-196. 16 8 AR 197-203. 17 9 AR 87-114. 18 10 Id. 19 20 11 AR 771-800. Per 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)–(g), 416.920(a)-(g), a five- 21 step evaluation determines whether a claimant is disabled. 22 12 AR 23-28. 23 1 • The opinions of state agency physician Norman Staley, MD, 2 with the exception of his opinion that Plaintiff had no 3 limitation in climbing ramps and stairs to be persuasive. 4 • The opinions of state agency physician Dennis Kukol, MD, and 5 state agency psychologists Gerald Gardner, PhD, and Matthew 6 Comrie, PhD, to be persuasive. 7 8 • The opinions of consultative examiner Marquetta Washington, 9 ARNP, with the exception of opined manipulative limitations 10 to be persuasive. 11 • The opinions of Patrick Metoyer, PhD; Archana Rajan, MD; 12 Suzanne Rodriquez, LICSW; and Melanie Adams, ARNP, to be 13 14 not persuasive. 15 • The opinions of Juliet Dennis, OMHNP-BC, to be partially 16 persuasive.13 17 The ALJ also considered the third-party statement of Plaintiff’s 18 mother and found it to be not persuasive.14 19 20 21 13 AR 28-32. 22 14 AR 32. 23 1 As to the sequential disability analysis, the ALJ found: 2 • Step one: Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of 3 the Social Security Act through December 31, 2027, and had 4 not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged 5 onset date of September 28, 2020. 6 • Step two: Plaintiff had the following medically determinable 7 8 severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, obesity, 9 peripheral neuropathy, anxiety, depression and hyperosmia. 10 She also found that Plaintiff’s non-severe and non-medically 11 determinable impairments include migraine headaches, 12 carpal tunnel syndrome, tachycardia, hypertension, 13 irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and fibromyalgia. 14 15 • Step three: Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 16 combination of impairments that met or medically equaled 17 the severity of one of the listed impairments. 18 • RFC: Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work except 19 that: 20 [Plaintiff] can sit for 1 hour at a time after which she 21 needs to change positions for a few minutes which she 22 could do from the seated positions but just moving 23 1 around in her seat and could continue working while moving around. In this manner, she can sit for 2 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. She can stand and/or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. She can 3 frequently balance. She can never climb ladders, 4 ropes, or scaffolds. She can do all other postural activities occasionally. With her bilateral upper 5 extremities, she can reach in all direction, fine finger, gross handle, and feel frequently. She must avoid 6 concentrated exposure to hazards. She can work or interact occasionally with coworkers and the public. 7 She can adapt to occasional workplace changes. She 8 would need to be able to alternate between sitting, standing, and walking at will as needed. 9 • Step four: Plaintiff is unable to perform past relevant work 10 11 as a teachers aid and home health aid. 12 • Step five: considering Plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and 13 work history, Plaintiff could perform work that existed in 14 significant numbers in the national economy, such as a 15 mailroom clerk (DOT 209.687-026), and a photo machine 16 operator (DOT 207.685-104).15 17 18 Plaintiff timely requested review of the ALJ’s decision, arguing 19 that the ALJ committed several errors. 20 21 22 15 AR 19-34. 23 1 II. Analysis 2 The parties agree the ALJ erred in her assessment of the medical 3 opinions, in her assessment of Plaintiff’s testimony, and in her 4 assessment of Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, and recurrent 5 headaches. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the Court 6 should remand for payment of benefits or for more proceedings. As is 7 8 explained below, the agreed-upon error with regard to the ALJ’s 9 consideration of the medical opinion evidence pertaining to 10 manipulative limitations calls for a payment of benefits. 11 A. Remand Standard 12 When a harmful error occurs in the administrative proceeding, 13 remand for further administrative proceedings is the usual course.16 In 14 15 comparison, in order for the court to consider remand for payment of 16 benefits, three factors must be satisfied: 17 (1) the record has been fully developed and further 18 administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose; 19 20 16 Treichler v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th 21 Cir. 2014) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 22 (1985)). 23 1 (2) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, whether claimant testimony or medical 2 opinion; and (3) if the improperly discredited evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find the 3 claimant disabled on remand.17 4 5 When these factors are satisfied, the decision whether to remand for 6 benefits or further proceedings is within the court’s discretion, as it “is 7 a fact-bound determination that arises in an infinite variety of 8 contexts.”18 9 B. Remand Analysis 10 The second remand factor is satisfied: the parties agree the ALJ 11 12 failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for finding the opinions of 13 state agency medical expert Dennis Koukol, MD, to be persuasive; in 14 incorrectly reciting that state agency medical expert Norman Staley, 15 MD, found Plaintiff to be capable of frequent manipulative limitations 16 when he had endorsed ARNP Marquetta Washington’s opinions; and in 17 18 19 20 17 Id. at 1101. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F. 3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014), 21 18 Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1100 (quoting Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 22 1177 (9th Cir. 2000)). 23 1 finding that ARNP Washington’s opinion that Plaintiff was limited to 2 occasional handling, fingering, and fingering to be not persuasive.19 3 ARNP Washington rendered the opinion on November 19, 2021, 4 after examining Plaintiff at the request of the Commissioner.20 ARNP 5 Washington noted that she reviewed the prior medical records of John 6 Muir, MD and Paul Kolostyak, MD, both of Kaiser Permanente.21 7 8 ARNP Washinton noted that on examination Plaintiff was able to 9 make a fist, pick up a coin, and use a zipper and button but that she 10 did not untie her shoelaces because it hurts to tie them.22 On 11 examination, Plaintiff had positive Tinel’s and Phalen’s bilaterally.23 12 Grip strength was 4/5 and there was decreased sensation in both hands 13 to both sharp and round objects.24 Waddell’s sign was negative, 14 15 16 19 ECF Nos. 12, 19. 17 20 AR 1608-1618. 18 21 AR 1608. 19 20 22 AR 1611. 21 23 AR 1612. 22 24 AR 1613. 23 1 indicating that Plaintiff was not malingering in any way.25 On the 2 basis of her examination, ARNP Washington diagnosed the following: 3 1. Fibromyalgia. Prognosis > 12 months. 4 2. Carpal tunnel, bilateral hand. Prognosis > 12 months. 3. Lumbar radiculopathy. Prognosis > 12 months. 5 4. Low back pain. Prognosis > 12 months. 5. Obesity. Prognosis > 12 months. 6 6. Tachycardia. Prognosis > 12 months. 7. Neuropathy all fingers, left hand. Prognosis > 12 months. 7 8. Neuropathy last 3 fingers, right hand. Prognosis > 12 8 months. 9. Weak hand grip, both hands. Prognosis > 12 months. 9 She opined that Plaintiff would be limited to light exertion “due to low 10 11 back pain, weak grip both hands, carpal tunnel both hands, and 12 neuropathy in hands.”26 She opined that Plaintiff would be limited to 13 occasional handling, fingering, gripping, and fingering “due to 14 neuropathy in several fingers in both hands, carpal tunnel in both 15 hands and weak grip in both hands.”27 16 17 18 19 20 25 Id. 21 26 AR 1614. 22 27 AR 1615. 23 1 There is no dispute between the parties that Plaintiff had 2 manipulative limitations.28 The ALJ found peripheral neuropathy to be 3 a severe impairment and acknowledged the need for manipulative 4 limitations in the RFC.29 In her brief, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ 5 would have been mandated to find Plaintiff disabled had she credited 6 ARNP Washington’s opinions regarding manipulative limitations. She 7 8 argues: 9 Next, concerning her hands, Dr. Rajan explained in 2022 that, even after bilateral CTS surgery, permanent nerve 10 damage limited [Plaintiff] to occasional bilateral handling 11 and reaching and she could have issues with repetitive typing. Tr. 1818. She also had positive Tinel’s and Phalen’s 12 testing, 4/5 strength, and reduced sensation in her hands, which led ARNP Washington to also assess occasional 13 handling, gripping, fingering, and feeling. Tr. 1613, 1615. Cold immersion testing also revealed left arterial 14 vasospasm. Tr. 1736. The rheumatologist, Dr. Allam opined 15 symptoms were more likely coming from FM or central sensitization (Tr. 1970), although he had also found 16 osteoarthritic changes in her hands, particularly in the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints and contributing to 17 pain and stiffness (Tr. 1831). Regardless of the source, the 18 ALJ dismissing her hand disorders as non-severe because of “mild” imaging (Tr. 20) was unsustainable and harmful 19 error as, had she appropriately limited [Plaintiff] to 20 21 28 Id. 22 29 AR 19, 22. 23 1 occasional manipulative tasks, the VEs testified there was no work in the nation (Tr. 84, 108). See Molina, 674 F.3d at 2 1115.30 3 In her brief, Plaintiff notes that Dr. Staley did not specify a 4 degree of limitation and instead found ARNP Washington’s opinion to 5 be consistent with the evidence.31 Dr. Staley did state that ARNP 6 Washington’s opinions were consistent with and supported by the 7 8 totality of the evidence.32 He also stated that the opined limitations 9 were not more restrictive than the findings.33 10 What Plaintiff did not cite is the identical language and finding 11 made by Dr. Koukol, that ARNP Washington’s opinions were consistent 12 with and supported by the totality of the evidence and that the opined 13 limitations were not more restrictive than the findings.34 While Dr. 14 15 16 17 30 ECF No. 12 at 5-6. 18 31 ECF No. 12. 19 20 32 AR 122, 134. 21 33 Id. 22 34 AR 150, 162. 23 1 Koukol did state later that there was a limitation to “frequent” he 2 endorsed ARNP Washington’s findings and opinions.35 3 As to the third factor, if the manipulative limitations are credited 4 as true, Plaintiff is correct that she would be considered disabled. The 5 following exchange took place on the record: 6 EXAMINATION OF VOCATIONAL EXPERT BY 7 REPRESENTATIVE: 8 Q Let's start with the Judge's initial hypothetical. And 9 if we were to reduce this person to only occasional reaching, handling and fingering and feeling, could they 10 still perform those jobs that you identified? 11 A No, they all require frequent reaching, handling and 12 fingering. 13 Q Okay. Would there be any substantial numbers of jobs at the light level with that additional restriction? 14 15 A No. There are a few occupations out there, counsel, I'm sure you're aware. But there's not very many 16 different occupations at the light exertional level that only have occasional reaching, handling and fingering.36 17 18 The third factor for remand-for-benefits is satisfied. 19 20 21 35 AR 152, 164. 22 36 AR 108. 23 1 Finally, as to the first factor, the Court finds that a remand for 2 further proceedings will serve no legitimate purpose. ARNP 3 Washington examined Plaintiff at the Commissioner’s request and 4 rendered an impartial opinion which both state agency consultants 5 found was consistent with and supported by the record. Additionally, 6 the administrative record in this matter is in excess of 2000 pages. As 7 8 such, additional administrative proceedings are not needed to develop 9 the record as to Plaintiff’s impairments. 10 III. Conclusion 11 On the basis of the medical opinions and vocational expert 12 testimony, benefits are to be awarded. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 13 ORDERED: 14 15 1. The ALJ’s nondisability decision is REVERSED, and this 16 matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social 17 Security for immediate calculation and award of 18 benefits. 19 2. The Clerk’s Office shall TERM the parties’ briefs, ECF 20 Nos. 12 and 19, enter JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff, 21 22 and CLOSE the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to file this order and provide copies to all counsel. DATED this 27th day of March, 2026 EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge ORDER - 15