Leos Condon v. Saul, No. 2:2019cv00242 - Document 14 (E.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 11 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING 12 COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Case is closed. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (AY, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
AR 21 (citing AR 308, 359, 433, 498, 533). During the hearing, 6 Plaintiff testified her spouse was pursuing a technical credential and working, and 7 that she was responsible for four children, ranging in age from five to fifteen at the 8 application date, who were living in the home. AR 42–46. Plaintiff explained her 9 duties at home included household chores such as doing laundry and cooking. 10 AR 53. The ALJ thus concluded Plaintiff was “quite functional and busy.”5 11 An ALJ may assign reduced weight to a claimant’s testimony that her 12 symptoms limit her ability to work where that testimony is undermined by 13 significant periods of unemployment attributable to causes other than the alleged 14 disability. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding 15 16 17 18 19 20 5 The Court also concludes the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s activities of daily living were inconsistent with the nature and severity of her alleged symptoms was supported by the record. While “[t]he Social Security Act does not require that claimants be utterly incapacitated to be eligible for benefits,” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989), an ALJ is justified in discrediting a claimant’s symptom testimony where it is incompatible with her self-described daily activities. See Bray, 554 F.3d at 1227. Having reviewed the record, the Court cannot find the ALJ’s conclusion—that Plaintiff’s activities of daily living was at odds with the severity of the symptoms she alleged—was arbitrary or baseless. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 15 Case 2:19-cv-00242-SMJ ECF No. 14 filed 06/02/20 PageID.749 Page 16 of 17 1 ALJ’s decision attributing little weight to symptom testimony of claimant whose 2 “work history was spotty, at best, with years of unemployment between jobs, even 3 before she claimed disability”); Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1173 n.2 (9th 4 Cir. 2015); cf. Gonzales v. Berryhill, 261 F. Supp. 3d 1085, 1097 (D. Or. 2017) 5 (reversing ALJ’s decision discrediting symptom testimony where bases for 6 claimant’s past terminations were consistent with alleged symptoms). 7 Having reviewed the record, the Court finds the ALJ articulated clear and 8 convincing reasons to attribute reduced weight to Plaintiff’s subjective symptom 9 testimony. Plaintiff did not maintain gainful employment for nearly a decade prior 10 to first claiming disability, and the ALJ reasonably concluded this gap in Plaintiff’s 11 employment was attributable both to her self-professed inability to cooperatively 12 work with others and her substantial responsibilities at home. The Court finds these 13 were clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to reject 14 Plaintiff’s symptom testimony, and therefore declines to overturn the ALJ’s 15 decision on this basis. CONCLUSION 16 17 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, is DENIED. 19 2. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is 20 GRANTED. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 16 Case 2:19-cv-00242-SMJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. ECF No. 14 filed 06/02/20 PageID.750 Page 17 of 17 The Clerk’s Office shall ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of DEFENDANT and thereafter CLOSE the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to all counsel. DATED this 2nd day of June 2020. _________________________ SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 17
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
