United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER
L. ROBART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Roberta Jane Ball seeks review of the denial of her
application for disability insurance benefits. Ms. Ball
contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")
erred in evaluating Ms. Ball's testimony, assessing her
residual functional capacity ("RFC"), and finding
her capable of performing work available in the national
economy. (Op. Br. (Dkt. # 7) at 1.) Having considered the
submissions of the parties, the relevant portions of the
record, and the applicable law, the court REVERSES Defendant
Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill's ("the
Commissioner") final decision and II REMANDS the matter
for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
August 15, 2013, Ms. Ball protectively filed an application
for disability insurance benefits. (Administrative Record
("AR") (Dkt. # 5) at 11.) Ms. Ball's
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
(Id.) After the ALJ conducted a hearing on January
8, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding Ms. Ball not
disabled. (AR at 11-23.)
utilized the five-step disability evaluation process in his
decision,  and the court summarizes the ALJ's
findings as follows:
Step one: Ms. Ball has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since December 26, 2011, the alleged onset date.
Step two: Ms. Ball has the severe impairments of bipolar
disorder and anxiety disorder.
Step three: Ms. Ball does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that meets or equals the
requirements of a listed impairment.
RFC: Ms. Ball has the residual functional capacity to perform
a full range of work at all exertional levels but subject to
following nonexertional limitations. Ms. Ball is able to
perform work that is limited to unskilled, repetitive, and
routine work. She is able to perform work with no public
contact and only occasional contact with supervisors and
coworkers. She is able to perform work that allows her to
work at her own pace while still meeting minimum production
requirements of the job. She is able to perform work that
allows her to be off task up to 10 percent of the time while
still meeting minimum production requirements of the job.
Step four: Ms. Ball is unable to perform any past relevant
Step five: Because jobs exist in significant numbers in the
national economy that Ms. Ball can perform, she is not
(See AR at 13-23.) The Appeals Council denied Ms.
Ball's request for review, making the ALJ's decision
the Commissioner's final ...