Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chappell v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

April 27, 2017

LEAH F. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant.

          ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF BENEFITS

          JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STAKES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Leah F. Chappell seeks review of the denial of her application for disability insurance and supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. Ms. Chappell contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in evaluating the medical evidence in the record, evaluating Ms. Chappell's testimony, and evaluating the side effects of Ms. Chappell's medications. (Op. Br. (Dkt. # 10) at 1.) Defendant Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill ("the Commissioner") concedes that the ALJ's decision was not free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence, arguing that the case should be remanded for further administrative proceedings. (Resp. Br, (Dkt. # 17) at 1-2.) Ms. Chappell contends that the case should be remanded for an immediate award of benefits. (Reply Br. (Dkt. # 18) at 1.) Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court REVERSES the Commissioner's final decision and REMANDS this matter for an immediate award of benefits.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On May 29, 2009, Ms. Chappell protectively filed applications for disability insurance and SSI benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") (Dkt. # 8) at 418.) Ms. Chappell's applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. (Id.) After a hearing and an unfavorable decision, Ms. Chappell appealed to this court. (Id.) This court reversed and remanded the matter on January 13, 2014, for further administrative proceedings. (Id.) After the ALJ conducted another hearing on September 18, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding Ms. Chappell not disabled. (Id. at 418-48.)

         In his decision, the ALJ utilized the five-step disability evaluation process, [1] and the court summarizes the ALJ's findings as follows:

Step one: Ms. Chappell has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 1, 2008, the alleged onset date.
Step two: Ms. Chappell has the following severe impairments: obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder ("PTSD")/panic disorder with agoraphobia/social anxiety/anxiety, borderline personality disorder, depression, obesity, varicose veins, and sprained ankle.
Step three: Ms. Chappell does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment.[2]
RFC: Ms. Chappell has the RFC to perform medium work as defined in 20 CF.R. §§ 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c), meaning she can lift 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently. She can stand or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday and sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday. She cannot be exposed to unprotected heights secondary to panic and prescribed medications. She can perform simple routine tasks as defined by the content and scope of reasoning level two. She can have no interaction with the public; however, incidental interaction is acceptable. She can have no greater than occasional interaction with coworkers and cannot perform tandem tasks.
Step four: Ms. Chappell is unable to perform any past relevant work.
Step five: Because jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Ms. Chappell can perform, she is not disabled.

(See Id. at 418-48.) The Appeals Council denied Ms. Chappell's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final decision.[3] (See Id. at 400-03.)

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.