Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kim Marie Ream applied for Social Security disability benefits on August 19, 2022, alleging disability beginning November 8, 2018. Her claim was denied initially and on reconsideration, and an administrative law judge held a hearing on June 13, 2024. On July 22, 2024, the ALJ found her not disabled. Because of a prior application denial, the adjudicated period ran only from June 11, 2020 through her September 30, 2020 date last insured. The Appeals Council declined review on May 9, 2025, and Ream sought judicial review in the Eastern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Through the date last insured, the ALJ found severe impairments including left knee status post meniscectomy, plantar fasciitis, lumbar degenerative disc disorder, obesity, sleep apnea, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and PTSD, but no listed impairment. The ALJ assessed a residual functional capacity for light work with four hours of standing and walking, occasional postural activities, no hazards or climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, simple instructions, and occasional interaction and workplace changes. Relying on a vocational expert, the ALJ found she could work as an office helper or parking lot attendant. On cross-motions for summary judgment, Ream challenged the discounting of her subjective testimony, the evaluation of opinions from Dr. Meekins, Dr. Taetzsch, and nurse practitioner Mason, and the ALJ's failure to resolve alleged conflicts between the vocational expert and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends that the district court deny Ream's motion, grant the Commissioner's cross-motion, and affirm the final decision. This is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, not a judgment, and nothing has yet been ordered. On subjective testimony, the judge found the ALJ's reading supported by more than a scintilla of evidence. The ALJ relied on normal mental status findings near the date last insured showing intact attention, concentration, and linear thought; on treatment of lumbar complaints during the adjudicated period with home measures such as compresses, stretching, and exercise; and on Ream's function report showing she could drive, shop, do laundry, and handle finances. Because the record permitted more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ's path had to be upheld.
On medical opinions, the judge applied the 2017 regulations, which eliminate deference to treating sources and focus on supportability and consistency, and found no error. The January 2020 check-box questionnaire from nurse practitioner Mason and Dr. Meekins, reporting no useful ability in many work-related areas, was found unsupported by Mason's contemporaneous notes reflecting improvement on Depakote and inconsistent with Ream's reported daily activities. Dr. Taetzsch's April 2024 retrospective opinion, reaching back to November 2018, was discounted because he began treating Ream in October 2022, more than two years after the date last insured, and because it conflicted with normal cognitive examinations in late 2020. The judge acknowledged that retrospective opinions can be persuasive in other circumstances.
At step five, the judge found the ALJ properly handled the claimed conflicts. The vocational expert did not simply cross-reference the Dictionary of Occupational Titles but narrowed the job bases, excluding busy public parking facilities to leave about 50,000 parking lot attendant positions and limiting office helper work to static workstations permitting a sit-stand split, leaving about 175,000 positions. Because the expert relied on professional experience and job analysis, the step-five findings met the substantial evidence threshold. Parties have 14 days to object, and the district judge has not yet ruled.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant's subjective symptom testimony may be discounted where mental status findings near the date last insured, home-based treatment, and a function report support the ALJ, and the court will defer when the record permits more than one rational reading.
- Under the 2017 regulations, a check-box opinion can be found unpersuasive when it conflicts with the source's own contemporaneous treatment notes and with the claimant's reported daily activities.
- A retrospective opinion from a provider who began treating the claimant years after the date last insured may be discounted, especially when it conflicts with clinical findings from the insured period.
- Vocational testimony that narrows job categories to fit the claimant's limitations, with stated job numbers, can resolve alleged conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
Why It Matters
The recommendation shows how deferential substantial evidence review operates when the insured window is very short and the ALJ ties each finding to records from that window. It also illustrates the post-2017 emphasis on supportability and consistency over treating-source status.
Findings and recommendations are not precedential, and the analysis here is fact-bound and cites record pages rather than announcing new law. The district judge may adopt, modify, or reject it after any objections.