Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00241/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00241-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 

D. F.,

1

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB 

ORDER REMANDING FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

(Docket 10) 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Claimant, D.F., filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance 

benefits (“SSDI”) on November 11, 2020, alleging disability beginning August 6, 2020.

2

 

Claimant has exhausted her administrative remedies and seeks relief from this Court.3

 She 

argues that the determination by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) that she is not 

disabled, within the meaning of the Social Security Act (“the Act”),4 is not supported by 

 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the 

recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial 

Conference of the United States. See Memorandum, Committee on Court Administration and Case 

Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), available at 

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. 

 2 Tr. 227–33. 

 3 Dockets 1, 10. 

 4 42 U.S.C. § 423; 42 U.S.C. § 1381. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 1 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 2 

substantial evidence and that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed legal 

errors. Claimant seeks a reversal of the decision by the SSA and a remand for further 

administrative proceedings, including a de novo hearing and decision.5

 The Commissioner of the SSA (“Commissioner”) filed an answer to the 

complaint and an answering brief in opposition, and Claimant has replied.6

 For the reasons 

set forth below, Claimant’s Motion for Remand at Docket 10 is GRANTED, the 

Commissioner’s final decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the SSA 

for further proceedings. 

II. BACKGROUND

 Claimant alleges that she is disabled due to rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”) and 

a visual impairment. Her date last insured is December 31, 2025.

7

 The ALJ hearing was 

held on August 16, 2022.8

 

A. Claimant’s Testimony

 Claimant testified that she had worked as a food service aide in a nursing 

home for 15 years. She was diagnosed with RA in 2008 and with Mycobacterium avium

complex (“MAC”) in 2011.

9

 The medications for RA make her more susceptible to MAC 

flareups, because they impair her immune system. Claimant’s 14-year old daughter helps 

with cooking, housework, and taking care of Claimant’s five-year old son. While she is 

 5 Docket 10 at 28. 

 6 Dockets 12, 13. 

 7

 Tr. 239. 

 8

 Tr. 50–74. 

 9 The American Lung Association defines MAC Lung Disease as “an infection caused a 

group of bacteria called Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC).” https://perma.cc/CDJ4-RYHP. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 2 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 3

able to cook, she has to sit down often. She does not drive. She has trouble sleeping due 

to pain. She trips on unexpected objects on the floor. She experiences double-vision a 

“few times a week,” and can only use a smart-phone for about 5 minutes before eye strain 

causes a headache. She testified to pain in her feet, ankles, knees, elbows, shoulders, back, 

and hips, with numbness in her hands and feet. Pain is increased by repetitive motions, 

walking, standing, sitting too long, typing, standing to do dishes or cook for too long. She 

has good and bad days, with bad days two or three days a week, but even on good days 

there is pain. She testified that her RA had worsened in the last several years, and that she 

is overwhelmed by the pain and poor eyesight. “Every day is a constant struggle.”10

B. Medical Opinions

Claimant has provided a thorough summary of her medical records,11 and the 

Court has independently reviewed the administrative record. Generally, the medical 

records reflect that Claimant’s RA (with “rheumatoid factor of both shoulders and left 

knee”) was treated with arthrocentesis injections in 2019,

12 and since then she has been 

treated with methotrexate.13 Claimant is “legally blind” in her right eye, and visually 

impaired in her left. As a result of her vision impairments, she suffers from migraines, 

photophobia, and nystagmus.14

10 Tr. 55–68.

11 Docket 10 at 3–8. 

12 Tr. 395–97. 

13 Tr. 524. 

14 Tr. 875–88. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 3 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 4

1. Dr. Ryan Ragle

From March 26, 2020, through at least March 21, 2023, Claimant was treated 

by Dr. Ragle for recurrent MAC, bronchiectasis, right eye blindness, and seropositive 

rheumatoid arthritis.15 Claimant endorsed joint pain, joint swelling, morning stiffness, and 

shoulder pain on multiple occasions.16 Dr. Ragle completed an Active Rheumatoid 

Arthritis Assessment on March 29, 2022, wherein he opined that Claimant was markedly

limited in her ability to stand and walk.17 He identified morning stiffness, increased pain 

with extended standing or walking, difficulty with repetitive fine and gross movements, 

positive serologic test for rheumatoid factor, and opined that Claimant cannot sustain any 

type of work activity eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year.18 Although 

Dr. Ragle opined that Claimant’s RA was “well controlled on relatively low-dose of 

methotrexate,” and that she was tolerating the medication “without difficulty,” 2019 x-rays 

showed “degenerative changes” and “multiple erosions” in Claimant’s hands and feet.19 

2. Dale King, DPT

A work capacity evaluation on May 6, 2022, yielded results reflecting pain 

behaviors that Dr. King found consistent with Claimant’s self-reported pain, identifying 

major areas of dysfunction in dynamic strength, positional tolerance, mobility, and balance, 

with decreased range of motion in her hips, knees, ankles, and shoulders, and pain in 

15 Tr. 38–49, 524–31, 865–68, 971–87. 

16 Examples include Tr. 524, 526, 529, 571, 573, and 576.

17 Tr. 865. 

18 Id. 19 Tr. 973–74. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 4 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 5

multiple joints affected by RA. He also found generalized fatigue.20 Dr. King also 

observed that Claimant was in more pain when leaving the evaluation than when she 

arrived, as a result of exertional activities required for the assessment.21 He concluded that 

Claimant could not perform even sedentary work on a full-time basis. 

3. Dr. Stephen Dobson, O.D.

Records from Dimond Vision Clinic diagnose Claimant with bilateral 

myopia, bilateral astigmatism, bilateral strabismic amblyopia, congenital nystagmus, 

bilateral photophobia, and optic neuropathy.22 She reported headaches, glare, light 

sensitivity, blurred vision (near and far), and Dr. Dobson deemed Claimant “legally blind” 

in her right eye, and visually impaired in the left.23 Dr. Dobson has treated claimant since 

childhood, and indicated that her migraines started in 2018.

24 He completed a Visual 

Impairment Medical Source Statement indicating that Claimant’s impairments were 

permanent, and that her symptoms were severe enough to interfere with attention and 

concentration needed to perform even simple work tasks.25 Such symptoms eliminated the 

vocational use of a computer for extended periods. He opined that she “should be provided 

in the work place additional time and resources to accommodate her visual impairment.”26

He expected she would miss work twice per month, and would need unscheduled breaks 

20 Tr. 867–74. The Court notes that Exhibit 21-F was provided only in electronic form, 

and is difficult to read. 

21 Tr. 871.

22 Tr. 552, 887. 

23 Tr. 875–88. 

24 Tr. 878. 

25 Id. 26 Tr. 552. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 5 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 6

during an 8-hour workday due to photophobia, nystagmus, and migraines.27 He

specifically indicated that she is not a malingerer.28

4. Non-examining state agency medical consultants 

Dr. Jerda M. Riley, M.D.,29 and Dr. King S. Leong, M.D.,

30 generally agreed as 

to Claimant’s ability to frequently lift and carry 10 pounds, climb stairs, and avoid high 

places and other hazards, but disagreed as to Claimant’s ability to sit/walk/stand. While 

Dr. Riley opined that Claimant could do each for up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, 

Dr. Leong limited her to a total of two hours for walking/standing, and 6 hours for sitting. 

Dr. Riley referred to and apparently adopted an assessment provided by another nonexamining State Agency Medical Consultant, Dr. Sai Nimmagadda, that was completed 

March 27, 2021.31

C. ALJ Decision

Disability is defined in the Act as:

[I]nability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by 

reason of any medically determinable physical or mental 

impairment which can be expected to result in death or which 

has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of 

not less than 12 months.32

27 Tr. 877, 879. 

28 Tr. 880. 

29 Tr. 84–92.

30 Tr. 111–17.

31 Tr. 87–88.

32 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 6 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 7

The Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining disability within the 

meaning of the Act.33 A claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four in 

order to make a prima facie showing of disability.34 If a claimant establishes a prima facie

case, the burden of proof then shifts to the agency at step five.35 

The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on January 25, 2023.36 Applying 

the 5-step process, the ALJ concluded that: Step 1, Claimant had not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date;37 Step 2, Claimant suffered from 

severe impairments, including “rheumatoid arthritis and visual disturbances,” but found 

Claimant’s MAC “non-severe”;38 and Step 3, Claimant’s severe impairments did not meet 

any medical listings.39 

Before proceeding to Step 4, a claimant’s residual functional capacity 

(“RFC”) is assessed. RFC is the most someone can do despite their mental and physical 

33 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

34 Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1096 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(quoting Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 

F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999).

35 Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1096 n.1.

36 Tr. 16–31.

37 Plaintiff indicated that she stopped working due to a combination of her vision 

difficulties, breathing difficulties, and because her RA had made it increasingly difficult to work. 

See Docket 10 at 13. The Commissioner now questions Claimant’s alleged onset date and her 

reasons for quitting her job. But the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial 

gainful activity (“SGA”) since August 6, 2020, and determined this finding consistent with 

Claimant’s earnings records. Tr. 19. Dr. Berlon’s notes indicated that “[w]hile she did file for 

disability during COVID the underlying situation is not directly related to concerns regarding 

COVID and is instead related to progression of her RA as well as underlying congenital cognitive 

and physical limitations that limit her job opportunities.” Tr. 669.

38 Tr. 19. 

39 Tr. 18–21. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 7 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 8

limitations.40 In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must base findings on “all of the 

relevant medical and other evidence,” including a claimant’s testimony regarding the 

limitations imposed by her impairments.41 This RFC assessment is used at both Steps Four 

and Five.42 In evaluating her RFC, the ALJ concluded that Claimant had the capacity to 

perform light work, with some limitations as to heights, exposure to respiratory irritants, 

and depth perception/far acuity.43

At Step 4, the ALJ found that Claimant could not perform her past relevant 

work as a food service worker, which was medium work.44 At Step 5 the burden of proof 

shifts to the Commissioner.45 The Commissioner can meet this burden in two ways: (a) by 

the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), or (b) by reference to the Medical-Vocational 

Guidelines.46 With the assistance of a VE, the ALJ concluded that Claimant was able to 

perform other work in the national economy, such as cleaner/housekeeper, marker, or 

routing clerk.47

The ALJ concluded that Claimant’s “severely impaired vision with her right 

eye . . . has been relatively stable . . . and has not prevented her from working or taking 

care of her children.”48 Similarly, the ALJ found that Claimant was diagnosed with RA in 

40 Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 

416.945(a)(1).

41 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).

42 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

43 Tr. 22. 

44 Tr. 29.

45 Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1096 n.1.

46 Tackett, 180 F.3d. at 1099, citing 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. 

47 Tr. 31. 

48 Tr. 23. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 8 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 9

2008, “and was able to work for many years thereafter despite this condition.”49 The ALJ 

found that Claimant’s RA was “generally well-controlled with medications, including a 

relatively low dose of methotrexate and folate,” that there was no organ or system 

involvement, and that Claimant is generally described as in “no acute or apparent 

distress.”50 The ALJ found that Claimant’s ability to care for her two children, four dogs, 

and engage in various domestic activities suggested that she was not as limited as she 

claimed.51

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A decision by the Commissioner to deny disability benefits will not be 

overturned unless it either is not supported by substantial evidence or is based upon legal 

error.52 “Substantial evidence” has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as 

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.”53 Such evidence is “more than a mere scintilla,” but also “less than a 

preponderance.”54 In making its determination, the Court considers the evidence in its 

entirety, weighing both the evidence that supports and that which detracts from the ALJ’s 

conclusion.55 If the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the 

49 Id.

50 Id. (citing Exhibits 4F, 5F, 7F, 26F, 11F). 51 Tr. 23–24.

52 Matney ex rel. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Gonzalez 

v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1990)).

53 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 

305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).

54 Perales, 402 U.S. at 401; Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th Cir. 

1975).

55 Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985).

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 9 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 10

ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.56 Courts “review only the reasons provided by the ALJ 

and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not rely.”57 If an ALJ commits 

legal error, courts will uphold the decision if it is harmless.58 An error is harmless if it is 

“inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.”59 However, “[i]f there is no 

affirmative evidence that the claimant is malingering, the ALJ must provide clear and 

convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of 

symptoms.”60 

IV. DISCUSSION

Claimant argues that the ALJ committed legal errors in denying her benefits 

because the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Claimant’s

subjective symptom testimony and failed to properly evaluate certain medical opinions, 

resulting in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.

61 But the Commissioner 

argues that the ALJ reasonably crafted the RFC after rejecting Claimant’s subjective 

complaints, as well as the opinions of treating physicians which were consistent with those 

complaints.62 

56 Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452–53 (9th Cir. 1984).

57 Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014).

58 Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012).

59 Id. (citation omitted).

60 Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added) (citing 

Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998|)).

61 Docket 10 at 18–28. 

62 “Dr. Dobson’s opinion is not strengthened by its consistency with evidence that has 

been properly discounted.” Docket 12 at 14. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 10 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 11

A. Claimant’s Activities and Credibility 

Claimant argues that the ALJ erred in rejecting her subjective symptom 

testimony.63 The ALJ found, and the Commissioner argues, that Claimant cares for her 

two children and four dogs, prepares meals, handles household chores, and can mow the 

lawn or shovel snow for 2 hours. They conclude that all of these activities are consistent 

with light work activity. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ and the Commissioner rely 

on an October 20, 2021, Function Report, wherein Claimant provided handwritten answers 

to open-ended questions.64 Those answers indicated that she could do laundry or mow or 

shovel for “two hours,” but the answer continued “and I hurt every time after.” She then 

wrote that she hires someone to shovel due to pain. Claimant also stated, in the same 

paragraph, that she can do dishes for only 30 minutes.65 The ALJ did not seek clarification 

from Claimant, nor did the ALJ address the inconsistencies or the fact that performing these 

activities caused Claimant pain. But the Commissioner argues that an “ALJ [does] not 

need to include in [a] list of [a claimant’s] daily activities all of [the claimant’s] caveats 

accompanying her description of those activities,”66 because the Ninth Circuit held in 

Rollins v. Massanari that although the claimant’s testimony was “somewhat equivocal 

about how regularly she was able to keep up with all of these activities, . . . it is not [a 

63 Docket 10 at 12–18. 

64 Tr. 299–311. 

65 Tr. 301.

66 Docket 12 at 10 (citing Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 500 n.3). (Indicating that 

because the ALJ provided “clear and convincing” reasons for discounting Claimant’s subjective 

pain testimony elsewhere in the opinion, a list of her caveats accompanying her description of 

those activities was unnecessary.). 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 11 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 12

court’s] role to second-guess” the ALJ’s reasonable findings.67 Claimant “consistently 

presented as being in no acute or apparent distress,” and being in “no acute distress,” argues 

the Commissioner, is “not the sort of description . . . one would expect to accompany” a 

claim of total disability.68 

But the Rollins court also held that “[i]f there is no affirmative evidence that 

the claimant is malingering, the ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons for 

rejecting the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of symptoms.”69 Here, there is 

no evidence of malingering, as specifically indicated by at least one physician.70 Moreover, 

the courts repeatedly have observed that “[t]he Social Security Act does not require that 

claimants be utterly incapacitated to be eligible for benefits, . . . and many home activities 

are not easily transferable to what may be the more grueling environment of the workplace, 

where it might be impossible to periodically rest or take medication.”71 

The Court finds that the ALJ has not provided clear and convincing reasons 

for rejecting Claimant’s testimony. The ALJ concluded that “claimant’s medically 

determinable impairments reasonably could be expected to cause some of her alleged 

symptoms, but that her statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects 

of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence 

67 Docket 12 at 7 (citing Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857). 68 Id. 69 Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857 (emphasis added) (citing Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 

(9th Cir. 1998)). 70 Tr. 880. 

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

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 12 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 13

in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.”72 The Commissioner maintains 

that the ALJ reasonably discounted Claimant’s subjective complaints because her 

testimony conflicted with her work history, objective medical evidence, her activities, and 

the fact that her physical symptoms were controlled with treatment.73 But the ALJ’s 

explanations focus on Claimant working for many years with both RA and vision 

impairments, suggesting that “there is nothing in the record to show a worsening of her 

symptoms or a decline in functioning” at her alleged onset date, and therefore “it is 

reasonable to assume she has continued to retain the capacity to work throughout the period 

at issue.”74 Nevertheless, the ALJ then found that Claimant could not perform her past 

relevant medium capacity work, and should be limited to only light work, suggesting some 

degree of impairment. And despite her legal blindness in her right eye, the ALJ opined 

that she could manage “occasional right depth perception.”75 The ALJ’s decision is

fundamentally flawed and internally inconsistent. 

B. ALJ Evaluation of Medical Opinions

The Commissioner notes that the regulations no longer grant treating 

physicians’ opinions controlling weight in a disability determination.76 However, 

discounting a physician’s opinion when it supports a Claimant’s subjective complaints still 

72 Tr. 23. 

73 Docket 12 at 2–3.

74 Tr. 23–24.

75 Tr. 24. The Court questions whether “right depth perception” is a medically accurate 

term, or even possible when one is legally blind in the right eye. 

76 Docket 12 at 15. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 13 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 14

requires an ALJ to cite substantial evidence in support of such findings.77 Here, the ALJ 

disregarded the opinions of virtually every treating physician without adequate 

explanation.

78 

The ALJ found Dr. Dobson’s “vague, not well-supported by his examination 

findings, and not consistent with the record as a whole,” complaining that Claimant’s lifelong treating physician failed to explain why Claimant would “need several breaks 

throughout the day, would frequently have symptoms severe enough to impair her attention 

and concentration, and would be absent from work twice a month.”79 The ALJ found it 

significant that Claimant’s vision had been impaired since birth, but did not prevent her 

from working from 2006–2020, and that “there is no evidence the claimant’s vision has 

deteriorated since she stopped working.”80 The Commissioner argues that the ALJ 

reasonably found Dr. Dobson’s recommended limitations unpersuasive, because his 2020 

opinion “did not explain how [Claimant’s] vision impairments interfered with work.”81 

But Dr. Dobson clearly stated that Claimant’s visual impairments were permanent, and that 

her symptoms, which included migraines, were severe enough to interfere with attention 

and concentration needed to perform even simple work tasks.82 Dr. Dobson ruled out the 

77 Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Even under the new regulations, 

an ALJ cannot reject an examining or treating doctor’s opinion as unsupported or inconsistent 

without providing an explanation supported by substantial evidence. The agency must ‘articulate 

. . . how persuasive’ it finds ‘all of the medical opinions’ from each doctor or other source, 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b), and ‘explain how [it] considered the supportability and consistency 

factors’ in reaching these findings, id. § 404.1520c(b)(2).”).

78 Tr. 26–29. 79 Tr. 27. 

80 Id. 81 Docket 12 at 13. 

82 Tr. 878. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 14 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 15

use of a computer for extended periods. He opined that she may need “additional time and 

resources” to accommodate her visual impairment.83 He expected she would miss work 

twice per month and would need unscheduled breaks during an 8-hour workday due to 

photophobia, nystagmus, and migraines, the latter having started in 2018.

84 In short, 

Dr. Dobson’s 2020 opinion clearly explained how Claimant’s vision impairments 

interfered with work. Moreover, it is not difficult to grasp the impact of poor vision and 

migraines on daily activities. Additionally, the VE testified that “a person who misses one 

day of work per month or more at unpredictable times will not be able to sustain 

competitive employment over time because of a loss of productivity and the inconsistency 

of performance and the unpredictability of when the person will be on the job.”85 The same 

is true if additional unscheduled breaks were required by the employee.86 Similarly, a 

person who is off task for 15 percent of the time due to pain would more probably than not 

be unable to sustain employment.87 The VE also testified that an individual limited to 

standing/walking for only one third of the day would only be eligible for sedentary 

employment.88 The ALJ addressed none of this testimony. 

The ALJ found Dr. Ragle’s notes were “vague in terms of work-related 

limitations” and that he failed to explain how Claimant’s joint pain would limit her ability 

83 Tr. 552. 

84 Tr. 877–79. The ALJ made no mention of Claimant’s migraines.

85 Tr. 71. 

86 Id. 87 Tr. 72. 

88 Id.

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 15 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 16

to perform light work.89 The Commissioner cites three isolated instances in Dr. Ragle’s 

medical records from 2020 and 2021 indicating that Claimant felt her RA symptoms were 

“adequately controlled” on her current regimen.90 There is no indication of what 

“adequately controlled” means in the context of RA.91 The ALJ did not discuss Dr. Ragle’s 

records from 2022 and 2023 which addressed chronic bilateral low back pain, and 

discomfort and swelling in both legs, which suggests a worsening of symptoms.

92 Nor did 

the Commissioner acknowledge the 2019 x-rays that showed degenerative changes and

multiple bone erosions in Claimant’s hands and feet related to the RA.

93 There is no 

discussion of the impact of bone erosions on an individual’s ability to work. 

The ALJ found Dr. King’s opinion that Claimant could not perform 

sedentary work on a full-time basis unpersuasive, not well-supported by his evaluation 

findings, and inconsistent with the record as a whole.94 Although Dr. King reported “an 

antalgic gait, decreased range of motion of her hips, knees, ankles, and shoulders, pain in 

multiple joints, and generalized de-conditioning,” the ALJ found that “these findings are 

not reflected in the treating notes.”95 But Dr. King did not treat Claimant. He performed 

a “work capacity evaluation,” identifying major areas of dysfunction in dynamic strength, 

89 Tr. 28. 

90 Docket 12 at 6. Tr. 524–31, 971–74. 91 The ALJ did not discuss Dr. Ragle’s records from 2022 and 2023 which addressed 

chronic bilateral low back pain, and discomfort and swelling in both legs. Tr. 38-40. Nor did the 

ALJ acknowledge the 2019 x-rays that showed degenerative changes and multiple bone erosions 

in Claimant’s hands and feet related to the RA. Tr. 973–74.

92 Tr. 38–40. 

93 Tr. 973–74.

94 Tr. 26. 95 Tr. 26–27. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 16 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 17

positional tolerance, mobility, and balance, with decreased range of motion in her hips, 

knees, ankles, and shoulders, and pain in multiple joints affected by RA, as well as 

generalized fatigue.96 He specifically noted that his findings were consistent with 

Claimant’s self-reported pain. He also observed that Claimant was in more pain when 

leaving the evaluation than when she arrived, as a result of exertional activities required 

for the assessment.97 

The Commissioner argues that Claimant does not “meet her burden” of 

proving disability because the conditions that she claims caused her to stop working had 

not deteriorated, and she had worked with them for many years. This reasoning fails. 

Evidence of deterioration is discussed above. And although the ALJ found that Claimant 

had worked with her longstanding visual impairments and RA, the ALJ nevertheless

concluded at Step 4 that Claimant could no longer perform her past work. Plaintiff 

accordingly met her burden to show that she could not return to her previous employment. 

At Step 5, the burden of proof shifted to the Commissioner to find other work in the national 

economy that Claimant could perform. 

The Commissioner makes the circular argument that her physicians’ opinions 

are not strengthened by their consistency with Claimant’s subjective complaints, because 

the ALJ rejected those subjective complaints.98 Having concluded that the ALJ failed to 

96 Tr. 867–74. The Court notes that Exhibit 21-F was provided only in electronic form, 

and is difficult to read. 

97 Tr. 871.

98 Docket 12 at 14. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 17 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 18

provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Claimant’s testimony regarding the 

severity of her symptoms,

99 the ALJ’s analysis collapses. 

D. Instructions on Remand

Having carefully reviewed the administrative record, including extensive 

medical records, the Court concludes, based upon the record as a whole, that the ALJ’s 

decision denying disability benefits to Claimant failed to provide specific, clear, and 

convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for the reasons discussed in this 

Order.

Further administrative proceedings generally are useful where the record has 

not been fully developed, there is a need to resolve conflicts and ambiguities, or the 

presentation of further evidence “may well prove enlightening.”100 The ALJ has an 

independent duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to assure that the claimant’s 

interests are considered, even when represented by counsel.101 Ambiguous evidence, or 

the ALJ’s own finding that the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the 

evidence, triggers the ALJ’s duty to “conduct an appropriate inquiry,” including 

subpoenaing a claimant’s physicians.

102

99 Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857. 100 Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1101.

101 Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001). 102 Id. 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 18 of 19
D.F. v. O’Malley Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-RRB

Order Remanding for Further Proceedings Page 19 

V. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant’s 

motion at Docket 10 is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED for further 

development of the record and a new ALJ hearing. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2024, at Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

 /s/ Ralph R. Beistline 

RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 3:23-cv-00241-RRB Document 14 Filed 12/17/24 Page 19 of 19