United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER REVERSING DECISION AND REMANDING CASE
J. BRYAN United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on review of the file herein.
5, 2017, Plaintiff filed this civil action, alleging that the
Social Security Administration improperly denied his
application for disability insurance when the ALJ failed to
properly consider the opinion of Dennis Anderson, D.O., who
is Plaintiff's treating physician. Dkt. 9.
1967, Plaintiff has prior work experience as an applications
programmer, parts inspector, Boeing program planner, and a
civil preparedness officer. Tr. 34-35. He has at least a high
school education. Tr. 35.
found: (1) that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements
of the Social Security Act; (2) that Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1,
2014, the amended alleged onset date; (3) that Plaintiff
suffered from the following severe impairments:
osteoarthritis of the hips, degenerative disc disease or
degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, right
shoulder reduction, dislocation, and tendinosis, obesity,
affective disorder (major depressive disorder, dysthymic
disorder), anxiety related disorder (anxiety, general anxiety
disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder
(“PTSD”)) and attention deficit disorder
(“ADD”); that the impairments, even in
combination, did not qualify under the Listings; (4) that the
Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity:
. . . to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b)
except as follows. He could occasionally balance, stoop,
kneel, and crouch. He would not climb ladders, ropes,
scaffolds, ramps, stairs or crawl. He could frequently reach
bilaterally. He would avoid concentrated exposures to
wetness, vibrations, and hazards. He could perform simple,
routine tasks and could follow short, simple instructions. He
could do work that needs little or no judgment and could
perform simple duties that could be learned on the job in a
short period. He requires a work environment with minimal
supervisor contact. (Minimal contact does not preclude all
contact, rather it means contact does not occur regularly.
Minimal contact also does not preclude simple and superficial
exchanges and it does not preclude being in proximity to the
supervisor). He could work in proximity to co-workers but not
in a cooperative or team effort. He requires a work
environment that has no more than superficial interactions
with co-workers. He would not deal with the general public as
in a sales position or where the general public is frequently
encountered as an essential element of the work process.
Incidental contact of a superficial nature with the general
public is not precluded.
has no past relevant work; and lastly, (5) that Plaintiff
could perform other work existing in the national economy,
such as a mail room clerk, marking clerk, and small parts
assembler.Tr. 20-36. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that
Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act. Id.
findings of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration are conclusive (42 U.S.C. § 405(g)), and
the decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits will be
overturned only if it is not supported by substantial
evidence or it is based on legal error. Gonzalez v.
Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.1990).
asserts that the ALJ failed to properly consider his treating
doctor's opinion regarding ...