United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S FINAL DECISION
AND DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
Vernon Haddix, seeks review of the denial of his application
for Supplemental Security Income. Plaintiff contends the ALJ
erred in evaluating medical opinions and his testimony. Dkt.
9. As discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the
Commissioner's final decision and
DISMISSES the case with prejudice.
is currently 51 years old, has a high school education, and
has worked as a social services aide and telephone solicitor.
Tr. 21. Plaintiff's first application for SSI benefits
was denied in a December 2012 decision. Tr. 14. This case
concerns plaintiff's second application for disability
benefits, filed September 2014. Id. After a hearing
in August 2016, the ALJ issued a decision finding plaintiff
had rebutted the presumption of continuing nondisability by
alleging worsening impairments, but also finding that he was
not disabled. Tr. 14-22 (citing Chavez v. Bowen, 844
F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir. 1988).
the five-step disability evaluation process,  the ALJ found:
Step one: Plaintiff has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since the September 2014
Step two: Plaintiff has the following severe
impairments: major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and
Step three: These impairments do not meet or
equal the requirements of a listed impairment.
Residual Functional Capacity: Plaintiff can
perform work at all exertional levels. He can understand,
remember, and carry out simple work tasks. He should not have
contact with the general public. He can have occasional and
superficial contact with coworkers. He should work
independently, without team or tandem tasks. He requires a
routine and predictable work environment.
Step four: Plaintiff cannot perform past
Step five: As there are jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff
can perform, he is not disabled.
Tr. 16-22. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request
for review, making the ALJ's decision the