United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER AND DISMISSING THE
A. Tsuchida, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
seeks review of the denial of application for Supplemental
Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. He
contends the ALJ erred by assessing the medical evidence,
assessing his own statements, and assessing the lay
statements. Dkt. 15 at 2. As discussed below, the Court
AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final
decision and DISMISSES the case with
is currently 37 years old, has a GED and has worked as a
barista, restaurant busser, in-home caregiver, and retail
sales clerk. Tr. 66, 372, 382. In June 2010, he applied for
benefits, alleging disability as of October 1, 2008. Tr.
341-42, 345-51. His applications were denied initially and on
reconsideration. Tr. 202-16, 222-40. The ALJ conducted a
hearing on March 22, 2012 (Tr. 138-73), and subsequently
found Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 44-55.
Appeals Council granted Plaintiff's request for review,
and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.
Tr. 198-200. An ALJ held hearings on January 22, 2014
(95-137), and May 6, 2014 (Tr. 60-94), and subsequently found
Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 19-34.
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review
(Tr. 1-6), but the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington reversed the ALJ's decision and
remanded for further proceedings. Tr. 764-77. The ALJ held
another hearing on August 17, 2017 (Tr. 716-60), and
subsequently found Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 688-707.
Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the ALJ's
the five-step disability evaluation process,  the ALJ found:
Step one: Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since October 1, 2008, the
alleged onset date.
Step two: Plaintiff's schizoaffective
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder,
major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder not otherwise
specified, social phobia, delusional disorder, and history of
polysubstance abuse are severe impairments.
Step three: These impairments did not meet
or equal the requirements of a listed
RFC: Plaintiff can perform a full range of
work at all exertional levels, with these limitations: he is
limited to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks consistent
with unskilled work. He is limited to low-stress work,
defined as work requiring few decisions/changes throughout
the workday. He is limited to no public contact and only
occasional contact with co-workers and supervisors. He must
avoid concentrated exposure to hazards. He can perform work
tasks at a standard or ordinary pace but not at a strict
production rate pace in which the individual has no control
over the speed of the work.
Step four: Plaintiff has no past relevant
Step five: As there are jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff
can perform, he is not disabled.
ALJ's reasons to discount a contradicted medical opinion
must be specific and legitimate. See Lester v.
Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff
challenges the ALJ's assessment of certain ...