United States District Court, W.D. Washington
ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING DEFENDANT'S
DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April Lynn Chambers seeks review of the denial of her
application for supplemental security income
(“SSI”) benefits. Plaintiff contends that the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in
evaluating the medical evidence and therefore in assessing
her residual functional capacity (“RFC”). Dkt. 7
at 1. As discussed below, the Court REVERSES
Defendant Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill's (“the
Commissioner”) final decision and
REMANDS the case for further administrative
February 18, 2010, plaintiff filed an application for SSI
benefits, alleging disability as of October 1, 1999. Dkt. 5,
Administrative Record (“AR”) 901. Plaintiff's
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
Id. Plaintiff was twice denied benefits after
hearings held in 2012 and 2015. Id. Both of those
decisions denying plaintiff benefits were reversed and
remanded by this Court. Id. After the ALJ conducted
a third hearing on October 21, 2016, the ALJ issued a
decision finding plaintiff not disabled. AR 901-27.
Utilizing the five-step disability evaluation process,
Step one: Plaintiff has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since February 18, 2010, the
Step two: Plaintiff has the following severe
impairments: depression, post-traumatic stress disorder,
panic disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, history
of kidney stones, and back pain.
Step three: Plaintiff's impairments do
not meet or equal the requirements of a listed
RFC: Plaintiff has the RFC to perform medium
work. She is able to perform simple, routine tasks in work
that involves no more than occasional contact with coworkers,
no team building or collaborative decision-making, no more
than occasional public contact, no customer service sales or
counter-type jobs, and no high-paced manufacturing-style
production. The claimant must be able to control her own
workflow during the workday, and her work must require no
more than routine or occasional adaptation to changes.
Step four: Plaintiff is unable to perform
any past relevant work.
Step five: As there are jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff
can perform, plaintiff has not disabled since February 18,
2010, the application date.
See AR 901-27. It does not appear from the record
that the Appeals Council assumed jurisdiction of the case.
See 20 ...