Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jeffrey L. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00305

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (15)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.9K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1 U.S. F D IL IS E T D R I I N C T T H C E O URT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
2 Feb 25, 2026

                                              SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK      

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5

JEFFREY L.,1 No. 2:25-cv-305-EFS

6

Plaintiff,

7 ORDER REVERSING THE

v. ALJ’S DENIAL OF BENEFITS,

8 AND REMANDING FOR AN

FRANK BISIGNANO, AWARD OF BENEFITS

9 Commissioner of Social Security,

10 Defendant.

11

Plaintiff Jeffrey L. asks the Court to reverse the Administrative

12

Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Title 16 benefits. Plaintiff claims he is

13

unable to work due to his limitations resulting from his mental-health

14

impairments and the ALJ erred in finding otherwise. The Court agrees

15

16

17

18

1 For privacy reasons, Plaintiff is referred to by first name and last

19

initial or as “Plaintiff.” See LCivR 5.2(c).

20

1 the ALJ erred when evaluating the medical opinions. This matter is

2 remanded for an award of benefits.

3 I. Background

4 In September 2022, at the age of 25, Plaintiff applied for benefits

5 under Title 16, claiming disability based on limitations related to

6 Asberger’s, autism, depression, and anxiety.2 From early childhood,

7 Plaintiff experienced speech and behavior-development delays.3 Given

8 his difficulties focusing and being disruptive, he was homeschooled; he

9 received his high school diploma.4 His mental-health medications have

10 been managed by Teresa Hutsell, ARNP, for several years.5

11 In support of his application, he submitted an Adult Function

12 Report and statements from his parents and a former employer. The

13 function report stated that he gets overloaded when stressed and then

14 will have a meltdown, his social skills are very limited as his social

15

16

2 AR 53, 178–79.

17

3 See, e.g., AR 285–86.

18

4 AR 51, 68–70, 222, 252, 281–82, 285

19

5 AR 53.

20

1 interaction is awkward, he has a hard time concentrating, he has

2 difficulty understanding what people are saying, he has a hard time

3 getting people to understand him, and he is irritable when he gets

4 frustrated.6 He needs reminders to bathe, eat, and do his chores, which

5 he does for about 10–30 minutes a day.7 He reports that he is unable to

6 handle a checking or savings account or pay bills, although he is able to
7 count change.8 For fun, he draws and plays online games.9

8 His parents submitted a statement, which states that their son

9 “does not and cannot live a ‘normal’ life” because he does not handle

10 stress well.10 They state that even in response to a simple request he

11 “will freeze” and does not know how to deescalate, he is unable to

12 handle interruptions without getting upset about having to start over,

13 and he has to be reminded multiple times to finish the chores he is

14

15

6 AR 229.

16

7 AR 230–31.

17

8 AR 232.

18

9 AR 233.

19

10 AR 280–81.

20

1 tasked with at home.11 He has a “significant lack of social awareness

2 and etiquette” in that he invades people’s space when talking, he will

3 interrupt conversations without waiting for a pause or completion, he

4 speaks “unfiltered,” and he does not have a “whisper mode.”12 They

5 state, “Simply put, it is a lot of work and effort to get him up and going
6 every day and through the daily life’s events that are an everyday

7 occurrence.”13

8 In 2020, Plaintiff worked for an irrigation company in their

9 warehouse. The manager at the warehouse submitted a statement

10 describing Plaintiff’s responsibilities and deficient performance:

11 He struggled with multiple items on the list-He couldn’t

figure out the computer sales- we worked with him trying to

12 train him how to put sales but he just couldn’t get it. He was

blunt and confrontational when someone would come in for

13 parts, at one point asking a customer “Don’t you know what

you want?” . . . We worked with him daily but after over a

14 month, things did not get any better and we made the

decision to let him go.14

15

16

11 AR 280.

17

12 AR 280.

18

13 AR 281.

19

14 AR 270.

20

1 The agency denied benefits.15 At Plaintiff’s request, ALJ Allen

2 Erickson held a telephonic hearing in May 2024, at which Plaintiff,

3 Plaintiff’s mother, and a vocational expert testified.16

4 Plaintiff testified that he has always lived with his parents

5 because he is dependent on other people, but he does help with

6 cleaning bathrooms, vacuuming, and dusting.17 He said his parents

7 remind him multiple times to do and complete his chores and to take

8 his medications at the proper time.18 Plaintiff testified that if he does
9 not take his medication his “behavior would be sour, very sour. I would

10 be irritable. My depression would rise up. I see not in a very good state

11 of mind.”19 He does not drive because he is concerned he will have an

12 accident since driving requires the ability to keep “so many things . . .
13 in mind that all times, like constant attention on every little thing, like

14

15

15 AR 102–10.

16

16 AR 40–80.

17

17 AR 57–58.

18

18 AR 59–60.

19

19 AR 55.

20

1 how fast you’re going, how close you are to other people, how – or when

2 you should break, how hard you should break and all that.”20 He has

3 not dated, does not have children, and his only friends are online.21

4 Plaintiff talked about the two jobs he worked—jobs that he obtained

5 through his parents’ connections.22 One job was at a warehouse.23

6 Plaintiff stated that he believed he was doing a good job and was on his

7 “best behavior,” however, after about one month, he was let go and it

8 was mentioned that it was due to his mental issues.24 The other job

9 was at plant services, earning less than $5,000, until he mentally broke

10 down at work.25 After discussions with his parents, it was decided that

11 he would submit a letter of resignation.26

12

13

20 AR 57.

14

21 AR 57–58.

15

22 AR 52–53.

16

23 AR 52–53.

17

24 AR 53.

18

25 AR 54, 186.

19

26 AR 54.

20

1 His mother testified that Plaintiff, even with his medication, is

2 unable to successfully live on his own because he needs help with his

3 medication and to care for himself.27 She said that even though his

4 medications help stabilize him, his parents do not leave him alone

5 overnight.28 His mother stated that although her son does chores, such

6 as cleaning bathrooms or vacuuming, the quality of his work is

7 subpar.29 She testified that he is “very socially awkward and to

8 himself.”30 In response to a hypothetical, she stated that her son can

9 physically fold laundry but she was unsure whether he could do such in

10 a full-time job.31 She stated that he would have some controversy with

11 either supervisors or coworkers because he “just has a hard time

12 around people,” as he is “very socially awkard, and he says what he

13 thinks and if, you know, he doesn’t think something is right, he’ll say

14

15

27 AR 63, 65.

16

28 AR 63, 65.

17

29 AR 66.

18

30 AR 66.

19

31 AR 67, 69.

20

1 it. And he’s just not socially up.”32 She testified that her son gets very

2 distracted.33 For instance, during a meal, he will get up and do

3 something, and he requires reminders to finish his chores because he

4 gets distracted.34 She shared that when she homeschooled him she had

5 to repeatedly explain subjects to him in several different ways to help

6 him learn.35 She stated that her son is not coordinated enough to drive

7 and he is not able to ride a bicycle.36

8 After the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits.37

9 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms were inconsistent with the

10 medical evidence and other evidence, including his longitudinal

11 treatment history, the objective findings, his presentations at

12

13

32 AR 68.

14

33 AR 69.

15

34 AR 69.

16

35 AR 68, 69.

17

36 AR 69.

18

37 AR 15–35. Per 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a)–(g), a five-step evaluation

19

determines whether a claimant is disabled.

20

1 appointments and mental status examinations, and his rather

2 independent daily activities.38 The ALJ considered the lay statements

3 from Plaintiff’s parents and his former warehouse employer, finding

4 them similar to Plaintiff’s own symptom statements, which the ALJ

5 found not fully consistent with the evidence.39 As to the medical

6 opinions, the ALJ found:

7 • the State agency reviewing opinions by Vincent G, PhD, and

8 Renee Eisenhauer, PhD, most persuasive.

9 • the psychiatric consultative examination opinion of Emily

10 Ketchel, PMHNP, unpersuasive.40

11 As to the sequential disability analysis, the ALJ found:

12 • Step one: Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful

13 activity since September 25, 2022, the application date.

14

15

38 AR 26–29. As recommended by the Ninth Circuit in Smartt v.

16

Kijakazi, the ALJ should consider replacing the phrase “not entirely

17

consistent” with “inconsistent.” 53 F.4th 489, 499, n.2 (9th Cir. 2022).

18

39 AR 29.

19

40 AR 28–29.

20

1 • Step two: Plaintiff had the following medically determinable

2 severe impairments: depressive disorder, general anxiety

3 disorder, autistic spectrum disorder, and attention deficit

4 hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

5 • Step three: Plaintiff did not have an impairment or

6 combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the

7 severity of one of the listed impairments.

8 • RFC: Plaintiff had the RFC to perform a full range of work at

9 all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional

10 limitations:

11 He can understand, remember, and apply simple, short

instructions. He can perform only routine, repetitive,

12 predictable tasks that are not in a fast-paced, production-

type environment, such as that with assembly lines or a

13 high hourly quota. He can make only simple decisions. He

can have exposure to only few, routine workplace changes.

14 He can have no interaction with the general public, and

only occasional, superficial interactions with coworkers

15 and supervisors, and not in a team-oriented environment.

(Occasional means one-thirds of the day; and superficial

16 means basic interaction, and working with coworkers and

supervisors is not the focus of the job).

17

• Step four: Plaintiff has no past relevant work.

18

• Step five: considering Plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and work

19

history, Plaintiff could perform work that existed in significant

20

1 numbers in the national economy, such as laundry worker;

2 laborer, stores; and kitchen helper.41

3 Plaintiff timely requested review of the ALJ’s decision by the

4 Appeals Council, which decided that the additionally submitted

5 medical record from ARNP Hutsell dated September 1, 2024, did not

6 show a reasonable probability that it would change the outcome of the

7 decision, and the Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ’s decision.42

8 Plaintiff then sought timely review by this Court.43

9 II. Standard of Review

10 The ALJ’s decision is reversed “only if it is not supported by

11 substantial evidence or is based on legal error” and such error

12 impacted the nondisability determination.44 “Substantial evidence is

13

14

41 AR 18–31.

15

42 AR 1–6, 14.

16

43 ECF No. 1.

17

44 Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). See 42 U.S.C. §

18 405(g); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012),

19

superseded on other grounds by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a) (recognizing

20

1 ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such

2 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

3 support a conclusion.’”45

4 III. Analysis

5 Plaintiff argues the ALJ committed several errors: (1) the ALJ

6 failed to properly evaluate the medical opinions; (2) the ALJ failed to

7 properly consider the longitudinal record when evaluating Plaintiff’s

8 mental conditions; (3) the ALJ failed to properly assess Plaintiff’s RFC;
9

10

that the court may not reverse an ALJ decision due to a harmless

11

error—one that “is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability

12

determination”).

13 45 Hill, 698 F.3d at 1159 (quoting Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978,

14

980 (9th Cir. 1997)). See also Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, 32 F4th 843, 851

15

(9th Cir. 2022) (recognizing the court looks to the entire record to

16

determine if substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings); Black

17

v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998) (“An ALJ’s failure to cite

18

specific evidence does not indicate that such evidence was not

19

considered[.]”).

20

1 and (4) the ALJ failed to determine that Plaintiff’s autism spectrum

2 disorder was sufficient to meet or equal a listing. The Commissioner

3 disagrees that error occurred, maintaining that the ALJ’s decision is

4 supported by substantial evidence. As is explained below, the ALJ

5 erred by failing to fully and fairly consider the nature of Plaintiff’s

6 chronic and life-long mental-health impairments and this error

7 impacted the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions.

8 A. Medical Opinions: Plaintiff establishes consequential

9 error.

10 Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by finding the reviewing opinions

11 of Dr. G and Dr. Eisenhauer most persuasive, finding the opinion of

12 consultative examiner Nurse Practitioner Ketchel unpersuasive, and

13 ignoring the psychological assessment done by Dr. Rebecca Braymen in

14 2014. The Court agrees the ALJ consequentially erred when evaluating

15 the medical opinions.

16 1. Standard

17 The ALJ must consider and articulate how persuasive he found

18 each medical opinion and prior administrative medical finding,

19 including whether the medical opinion or finding was consistent with

20

1 and supported by the record.46 The factors for evaluating

2 persuasiveness include, but are not limited to, supportability,

3 consistency, relationship with the claimant, and specialization.47

4 Supportability and consistency are the most important factors:

5 (1) Supportability. The more relevant the objective medical

evidence and supporting explanations presented by a

6 medical source are to support his or her medical opinion(s) or

prior administrative medical finding(s), the more persuasive

7 the medical opinions or prior administrative medical

finding(s) will be.

8

(2) Consistency. The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or

9 prior administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence

from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the

10 claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) or prior

administrative medical finding(s) will be.48

11

The ALJ may, but is not required to, explain how the other listed

12

factors were considered.49

13

14

15

46 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a)–(c); Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 792 (9th
16

Cir. 2022).

17

47 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c)(1)–(5).

18

48 Id. § 416.920(c)(1)–(2).

19

49 Id. § 416.920c(b)(2).

20

1 When considering the ALJ’s findings, the Court is constrained to

2 the reasons and supporting explanation offered by the ALJ.50

3 1. Medical opinions

4 a. Dr. Braymen

5 In 2014, when Plaintiff was 18 years old, he was psychologically

6 evaluated by Rebecca Braymen, PhD.51 The evaluation included an

7 interview of Plaintiff, answering questions by Plaintiff’s parents, a

8 mental status examination, reviewing testing done two years prior by

9 board-certified neuropsychologist Dr. William Britt, and testing of

10 Plaintiff’s intelligence, attention/concentration, and emotional and

11 behavioral functioning. Dr. Brayman observed Plaintiff’s mood to be

12 anxious at times, attitude as cooperative and friendly, affect as

13 constricted and congruent with his mood, and speech as slow and too

14 detailed. He also observed Plaintiff to be restless, agitated, and

15 orientated, with immature and minimally impaired judgment, limited

16 insight, and tangential, disorganized, and obsessive thought processes,

17

18

50 See Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2014).

19

51 AR 282–97.

20

1 with flight of ideas and loose associations.52 Plaintiff performed above

2 average on the WASI-II intelligence functioning test; and the CCPT-II

3 results showed that Plaintiff’s medication was successfully managing

4 his attention problems.53 Dr. Braymen noted that Plaintiff’s parents

5 reported that he has difficulty tolerating changes in routine, activities,
6 and behavior, and sometimes engages in purposeless and repetitive

7 tasks.54 Dr. Braymen diagnosed Plaintiff with autism spectrum

8 disorder, ADHD, generalized anxiety disorder, and unspecified

9 depressive disorder.55 She recommended that Plaintiff continue with

10 his medication management and individual therapy, participate in

11 neurofeedback, be evaluated for pragmatic language deficits, and be

12 encouraged to continue in loosely structured group activities where he

13 could practice social skills.56

14

15

52 AR 286–87.

16

53 AR 287–93.

17

54 AR 295–96.

18

55 AR 283–84.

19

56 AR 284–85.

20

1 b. Nurse Practitioner Ketchel

2 In April 2023, Nurse Practitioner Ketchel performed a psychiatric

3 consultative examination at the request of the Social Security

4 Administration.57 NP Ketchel reviewed a psychiatric record from

5 2021,58 interviewed Plaintiff, and conducted a mental status

6 examination. Plaintiff was observed as cooperative with fair eye

7 contact with his head bowed most of the examination, restless with

8 constant hand and leg fidgeting, normal speech, normal mood and

9 affect, circumstantial thought process, unremarkable thought content,

10 and fair attention and concentration during the conversational portion

11 of the evaluation, as NP Ketchel had to repeat questions due to him not

12 paying attention.59 During the memory testing, Plaintiff’s remote and

13

14

57 AR 344–50.

15

58 Although the date of the record is not listed by NP Ketchel, the only

16

2021 medical record in the administrative record is the November 5,

17

2021 treatment record by Plaintiff’s treating provider, ARNP Hutsell.

18

AR 299–301.

19

59 AR 347.

20

1 immediate and delay recall were correct, and repeated digit spans

2 forward and backward were correct except for the six-digit forward

3 span.60 Plaintiff had difficulty counting backwards by serial threes.61

4 When performing the three-step command, Plaintiff asked for the

5 instructions to be repeated.62 NP Ketchel opined that Plaintiff was able

6 to manage his funds and would be able to interact with coworkers,

7 superiors, and the public and adapt to usual workplace stresses

8 notwithstanding his inability to understand social cues, but was not

9 able to understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions given

10 his struggles with forward-number repetition, serial-three subtraction,

11 and three-step command; not able to understand, remember, and carry

12 out complex instructions due to his struggles with serial threes and

13 poor attention during the interview; and not able to sustain

14 concentration and persist in work-related activity at a reasonable pace,

15 including regular attendance and work completion, given his frequent

16

17

60 AR 347.

18

61 AR 348.

19

62 AR 348.

20

1 interruptions and social-situation uncomfortableness, as evidenced by

2 poor eye contact and bowed head.63

3 c. Dr. G and Dr. Eisenhauer

4 Dr. G reviewed the administrative record in April 2023.64 Dr. G

5 found Plaintiff moderately limited in his abilities to:

6 • Understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions.

7 • Maintain attention and concentration for extended periods.

8 • Work in coordination with or in proximity to others without

9 being distracted by them.

10 • Complete a normal workday and workweek without

11 interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and

12 perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number

13 and length of rest breaks.

14 • Interact appropriately with the public.

15 • Get along with coworkers or peers without distracting them

16 with or exhibiting behavioral extremes.

17

18

63 AR 349.

19

64 AR 85–90.

20

1 • Respond appropriately to changes in the work setting.

2 • Set realistic goals or make plans independently of others.

3 Dr. G suggested that Plaintiff avoid public contact, interact with others
4 on an occasional/superficial basis, perform routine work in a

5 predictable setting, and have goals set by the supervisor.65

6 In September 2023, Dr. Eisenhauer reviewed the medical

7 records, and she agreed with Dr. G’s opined limitations.66

8 2. The ALJ’s findings

9 The ALJ found Dr. G’s and Dr. Eisenhauer’s opinions most

10 persuasive because (1) they were supported by narrative explanation

11 and based on a longitudinal evaluation of the record; (2) they have

12 knowledge of the SSA program; (3) their opinions were:

13 entirely consistent with the claimant’s longitudinal mental

health treatment history, his presentations at appointments

14 and mental status examination, the statements of

improvement with treatment or denials of symptoms, and

15 his documented daily activities, such as taking care of his

own hygiene, doing chores at home, shopping and going to

16 places with family, playing video games and socializing with

17

18

65 AR 88.

19

66 AR 92–99.

20

1 friends online, and the reported significant limitations with

social functioning . . . .67

2

The ALJ found NP Ketchel’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s abilities

3

as to simple instructions and sustaining concentration, persistence,

4

and attendance unpersuasive because:

5

• It was an overestimate of the severity of Plaintiff’s cognitive

6

restrictions and based only on a snapshot of his functioning.

7

• It was not consistent with other evidence showing that

8

Plaintiff’s mental symptoms were stable on medications, and

9

his presentation at appointments, his reported activities of

10

daily living, and his statements of improvement.

11

The ALJ also found NP Ketchel’s opinion that Plaintiff is able to

12

interact with coworkers, superiors, and the public without restrictions

13

unsupported because the totality of the record showed that he had

14

significant social-functioning limitations, and that he should be limited
15

to simple, repetitive work in a stable/predictable work environment

16

17

18

19

67 AR 28 (internal citations to the record omitted).

20

1 with few changes and with no public contact and no more than

2 occasional, superficial interaction with coworkers and supervisors.68

3 The ALJ found Dr. Braymen’s opinion to have little probative

4 value because it “predates the SSI filing date by almost eight years and

5 therefore does not reflect the claimant’s functioning during the

6 relevant period and has little probative value.”69

7 The ALJ’s medical-opinion analysis was accompanied by the

8 ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff had a marked limitation in his ability to

9 interact with others and a moderate limitation in his abilities to (1)

10 understand, remember, or apply information; (2) concentrate, persist,

11 or maintain pace; and (3) adapt or manage himself.70

12 3. Analysis

13 The ALJ’s evaluation of the medical records, and in turn the

14 medical opinions, was impacted by the ALJ’s failure to fairly consider

15 the lifelong nature and extent of Plaintiff’s mental impairments and

16

17

68 AR 28–29.

18

69 AR 29.

19

70 AR 22–23.

20

1 the nature of the noted improvement in Plaintiff’s mental-health

2 symptoms. As is evidenced by the statements from Plaintiff’s parents

3 and supervisor, the observations of his treating provider ARNP

4 Hutsell, and the evaluations performed by Dr. Britt, Dr. Braymen, and

5 NP Ketchel, Plaintiff’s mental impairments have significantly

6 impacted him from a young age and have continued to do so.

7 The record reflects that even though medication was “adequately

8 maintain[ing] his attention and focus,” during the relevant period,

9 Plaintiff was dependent on his parents to manage his life and was

10 unable to successfully live on his own. Even for the household chores

11 that Plaintiff assisted with for short periods of the day, daily reminders
12 were needed for him to complete the task. In addition, even though he

13 took medication for years, Plaintiff still needed the assistance of his

14 parents to take the medication on schedule.

15 Plus, even though Plaintiff was “stable” on medication, ARNP

16 Hutsell routinely observed Plaintiff with a concrete thought process, a

17 slightly halting speech pattern, and restricted affect.71 Treatment notes
18

19

71 See AR 454, 468, 490, 512, 528.

20

1 reflect that even while stable on medications, he continued to have

2 behavioral symptoms that caused him to be dependent on living with

3 his parents and he needed reminders for chores and redirecting during

4 the consultative examination with NP Ketchel.72 In July 2023, ARNP

5 Hutsell mentioned in her treatment note, “Patient remains in care of

6 his parents that help ensure ADLs are completed. He does not perform

7 ADLs without reminders.”73 Again, in October 2023, ARNP Hutsell

8 wrote, “he continues to do well under the care of his parents. He needs

9 reminders to take his medications and regarding personal hygiene and

10 other daily activities of living.”74 ARNP Hutsell wrote in February 2024

11 that “Patient’s autism does make behavioral changes more difficult.”75

12 When the record is fully and fairly viewed, substantial evidence

13 does not support the ALJ’s finding that Dr. G’s and Dr. Eisenhauer’s

14 opined limitations were more consistent with Plaintiff’s longitudinal

15

16

72 See, e.g., AR 299, 333–35, 404–06, 467–70.

17

73 AR 357.

18

74 AR 513.

19

75 AR 470.

20

1 mental health treatment history, his presentations at appointments

2 and the psychological examinations performed by Dr. Braymen and

3 NP Ketchel, and the statements of improvement with treatment or

4 denials of symptoms.76

5 Moreover, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s

6 finding that Plaintiff’s daily activities, including taking care of his own
7 hygiene, doing a few chores at home each day with reminders, and

8 playing video games and socializing with his online friends, were

9 inconsistent with NP Ketchel’s opinion that Plaintiff was unable to

10 sustain and persist in full-time work.77 Plaintiff has not lived on his

11

12

76 See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154,1164 (9th Cir. 2014)

13

(emphasizing that treatment records must be viewed considering the

14

overall diagnostic record).

15

77 See Diedrich v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir. 2017)

16

(recognizing that the fact the claimant “could participate in some daily

17

activities does not contradict the evidence of otherwise severe problems

18

that she encountered in her daily life during the relevant period”); Fair
19

v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989).

20

1 own and was unable to sustain his two prior attempts at employment.

2 The ALJ did not discuss why Plaintiff’s choice of playing video games

3 and making friends online, rather than in person, is reflective of an

4 ability to sustain full-time work rather than a byproduct of his social

5 limitations and concrete thinking relating to his mental-health

6 impairments.

7 As to the ALJ’s supportability analysis, the ALJ failed to explain

8 why NP Ketchel’s opinion that Plaintiff would be unable to sustain

9 concentration and persist at work was not supported by her

10 observation that Plaintiff had to have questions repeated because he

11 was not paying attention, was fidgeting, and displayed social

12 uncomfortableness. Moreover, the basis for the ALJ’s finding that

13 Dr. G’s and Dr. Eisenhauer’s opinion that Plaintiff can sustain

14 concentration and persist at work was supported “by narrative

15 explanation” is unclear.78 Although their Disability Determination

16 Explanation Forms summarize some of the medical records and

17

18

19

78 AR 28.

20

1 NP Ketchel’s opinion, missing from the Disability Determination

2 Explanations is any explanation as to why they disagreed with

3 NP Ketchel’s concentration and persistence limitations, particularly

4 given that NP Ketchel had to repeat questions and she observed

5 Plaintiff with poor posture and restlessness.79 That Dr. G and

6 Dr. Eisenhauer found that NP Ketchel’s “exam overall is consistent

7 with the ability to perform simple repetitive tasks,”80 is not necessarily

8 inconsistent with Dr. Ketchel’s opinion that Plaintiff cannot sustain

9 simple repetitive tasks over the course of a workday. There was no

10 evidence discussed by Dr. G and Dr. Eisenhauer to explain why they

11 disagreed with NP Ketchel’s opinion that Plaintiff could not sustain

12 full-time work. In summary, the ALJ did not explain why Dr. Ketchel’s

13 opined persistence limitation was less supported than Dr. G’s and

14 Dr. Eisenhauer’s opinions as to Plaintiff’s persistence abilities.81

15

16

79 AR 82–99.

17

80 AR 86, 96.

18

81 Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988) (requiring the

19

ALJ to identify the evidence supporting the found conflict to permit the

20

1 The ALJ’s errors when evaluating the evidence and the medical

2 opinions requires remand.82

3 B. Remand: award benefits.

4 Plaintiff asks for an award of benefits; whereas the Commissioner

5 argues this record does not justify an award of benefits.

6 Although remand for further administrative proceedings is the

7 usual course when a harmful error occurs in the administrative

8 proceeding, this is a rare circumstance where an award of benefits is

9 appropriate.83 First, this record contains the treatment records from

10

11

court to meaningfully review the ALJ’s finding); Humane Soc. of U.S. v.

12

Locke, 626 F.3d 1040, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010 (requiring an agency to

13

provide an explanation that “enables meaningful judicial review”);

14

Burnett v. Bowen, 930 F.3d 731, 736 (7th Cir. 1987).

15

82 Plaintiff’s other arguments in support of remand need not be

16

addressed.

17

83 See Treichler v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099

18

(9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729,

19

744 (1985)).

20

1 his primary provider, a consultative psychological examination ordered

2 by the SSA, a prior psychological examination that references an even

3 earlier examination, a statement from a prior employer, a statement

4 from his parents, and testimony from Plaintiff and his mother.

5 Plaintiff’s mental-health impairments are life-long and there is no

6 assertion that the continued use of medication will lessen Plaintiff’s

7 concentration, attention, and interpersonal difficulties resulting from

8 his autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, depressive disorder, and a

9 general anxiety order. Further administrative proceedings to develop

10 the record will serve no useful purpose.

11 Second, as discussed above, the ALJ failed to provide legally

12 sufficient reasons to reject NP Ketchel’s opined concentration and

13 persistence limitations.

14 Third, if NP Ketchel’s opinion that Plaintiff is unable to sustain

15 concentration and persist in work-related activity at a reasonable pace

16 is credited, Plaintiff is disabled. The vocational expert testified that an

17 employee who is off task more than 10 percent of the time is

18

19

20

1 unemployable.84 In addition, the vocational expert testified that,

2 outside the supported-employment realm, an individual who requires

3 close and frequent supervision because of an inability to complete tasks

4 without further prompting is unemployable.85

5 Therefore, benefits are warranted.

6 IV. Conclusion

7 Plaintiff establishes the ALJ erred and that an award of benefits is

8 appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

9 1. The ALJ’s nondisability decision is REVERSED, and this

10 matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social

11 Security for immediate calculation and award of

12 benefits.

13 2. The Clerk’s Office shall TERM the parties’ briefs, ECF Nos.

14 11 and 15, enter JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff, and

15 CLOSE the case.

16

17

18

84 AR 74.

19

85 AR 75–76.

20

1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to file this

2 |lorder and provide copies to all counsel.

3 DATED this 25* day of February 2026.

                                 td I  Lew. 

5 EDWARD F.SHEA
Senior United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19

                                             DISPOSITIVE ORDER - 31