United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
CAROLYN M. STRASBURG, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER AND DISMISSING THE
B. Leighton United States District Judge.
M. Strasbourg appeals the ALJ's decision finding her not
disabled. She contends the ALJ misevaluated the medical
evidence and her testimony and that the Court should remand
the matter for an award of benefits or for further
proceedings. For the reasons below, the Court
AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final
decision and DISMISSES the case with
the five-step disability evaluation process,  the ALJ found:
Step one: Ms. Strasbourg has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since March 31, 2013.
Step two: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD), depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and alcohol
dependence are severe impairments.
Step three: These impairments do not meet or
equal the requirements of a listed impairment.
Residual Functional Capacity: Ms. Strasbourg
can perform the full range of work at all exertional levels
subject to several non-exertional or mental limitations.
Step four: Ms. Strasbourg cannot perform
past relevant work.
Step five: As there are jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy that Ms.
Strasbourg can perform, she is not disabled.
Tr. 27-38. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request
for review making the ALJ's decision the
Commissioner's final decision. Tr. 1.
The ALJ's Evaluation of the Medical Evidence
Strasbourg contends the ALJ failed to consider the record as
a whole. Dkt. 13 at 4. There is no indication the ALJ failed
to do so and the Court rejects this unfounded contention. Ms.
Strasbourg also suggests the ALJ impermissibly focused on
certain portions of the evidence. Id. at 5. She
provides nothing in support other than arguing the ALJ
erroneously rejected the opinions of three doctors and her
testimony. The ALJ is responsible for determining
credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and
resolving all other ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala,
53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). This is what the ALJ
properly did here in giving some evidence more weight and