United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13
(see also Consent to Proceed Before a United States
Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 2). This matter has been fully
briefed. See Dkt. 15, 20, 21.
considering and reviewing the record, the Court concludes
that the ALJ did not commit harmful legal error during the
evaluation of plaintiff's Social Security applications.
Although plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred when
evaluating plaintiff's allegations and testimony, there
are many inconsistencies and conflicts between
plaintiff's testimony at her hearing about her
limitations, and the statements and reports throughout the
medical record regarding her activities and abilities.
although plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred when evaluating
the medical evidence, when providing their medical opinions,
Drs. Lindner and Chalstrom both clearly relied heavily on
plaintiff's subjective reports - subjective reports which
the ALJ properly rejected.
this matter is affirmed pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
SANDRA MANGUM, was born in 1974 and was 39 years old on the
alleged date of disability onset of June 15, 2013.
See AR. 213-19, 220-27. Plaintiff completed the
ninth grade in school. AR. 40. Plaintiff has work experience
as a cashier, deli worker, customer service worker and office
worker. AR. 46-49, 268-79.
to the ALJ, plaintiff has at least the severe impairments of
“obesity, affective disorder, and anxiety disorder (20
CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).” AR. 20.
time of the hearing, plaintiff was living in a house with her
husband and four children. AR. 41.
applications for disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423 (Title
II) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)
benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a) (Title XVI) of
the Social Security Act were denied initially and following
reconsideration. See AR. 83, 84, 111, 112.
Plaintiff's requested hearing was held before
Administrative Law Judge Ilene Sloan (“the ALJ”)
on November 16, 2015. See AR. 34-82. On January 6,
2016, the ALJ issued a written decision in which she
concluded that plaintiff was not disabled pursuant to the
Social Security Act. See AR. 14-33.
plaintiff's Opening Brief, plaintiff raises the following
issues: (1) The ALJ erred in her consideration of
plaintiff's allegations; (2) The ALJ erred in her
weighing of the medical opinions; and (3) The ALJ erred in
her consideration of the lay witness testimony. See
Dkt. 15, p. 1.
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court may set aside the
Commissioner's denial of social security benefits if the
ALJ's findings are based on legal error or not supported
by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Bayliss
v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)
(citing Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th
Did the ALJ err in her consideration of plaintiff's
contends that the ALJ erred when failing to credit fully her
allegations and testimony. Dkt. 15, pp. 2-11. Defendant