United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
J. RICHARD CREATURA, Magistrate Judge.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13 ( see also Notice of Initial Assignment to a U.S. Magistrate Judge and Consent Form, Dkt. 5; Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 6). This matter has been fully briefed ( see Dkt. 14, 21, 22).
After considering and reviewing the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ erred in failing to include in her residual functional capacity ("RFC") finding all of the limitations assessed by Dr. John M. Haroian, Ph.D. Because the RFC should have included additional limitations, and because these additional limitations may have affected the ultimate disability determination, the error is not harmless.
Therefore, this matter is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Acting Commissioner for further consideration.
Plaintiff, STEVEN ROBERT ANGELONIS, was born in 1992 and was 19 years old on the amended alleged date of disability onset of April, 11, 2012 ( see AR. 12, 151-56). Plaintiff graduated from high school (AR. 34). He has no work history ( id. ).
According to the ALJ, plaintiff has at least the severe impairments of "borderline intellectual functioning, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), cannabis related disorder NOS, and status post left knee repair (20 CFR 416.920(c))" (AR. 14).
At the time of the hearing, plaintiff was living with his mom, brother, and fiancee (AR. 33).
Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a) (Title XVI) of the Social Security Act was denied initially and following reconsideration ( see AR. 65-75, 77-88). Plaintiff's requested hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Stephanie Martz ("the ALJ") on March 19, 2013 ( see AR. 27-63). On April 17, 2013, the ALJ issued a written decision in which the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was not disabled pursuant to the Social Security Act ( see AR. 9-26).
In plaintiff's Opening Brief, plaintiff raises the following issues: (1) Did the ALJ err in assessing the medical evidence in the record; (2) Did the ALJ err by rejecting the lay witness evidence from plaintiff's mother; and (3) Did the ALJ err in assessing plaintiff's RFC ( see Dkt. 14, p. 1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court may set aside the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits if the ALJ's findings are based on legal error or not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. ...