Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boh S. v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

June 5, 2019

BOH S., Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER

          MICHELLE L. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. Plaintiff contends the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in assessing medical opinions, assessing Plaintiff's testimony, and assessing lay witness testimony.[1] (Dkt. # 16.) As discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff was born in 1985, has a GED, and has worked as a cook and stocker. AR at 319, 324, 329. Plaintiff was last gainfully employed in 2005. AR at 323.

         On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff applied for benefits, alleging disability as of October 25, 1998.[2] AR at 15, 276. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and Plaintiff requested a hearing. AR at 187-90, 194-96, 200. After the ALJ conducted hearings on November 17, 2016 and January 26, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled. Id. at 15-33.

         Utilizing the five-step disability evaluation process, [3] the ALJ found:

Step one: Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 2, 2014.[4]
Step two: Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); depressive disorder; anxiety related disorder vs. post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); cognitive disorder vs. neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury (TBI); drug and alcohol addiction; personality disorder; learning disorder vs. borderline intellectual functioning (BIF).
Step three: These impairments do not meet or equal the requirements of a listed impairment.[5]
Residual Functional Capacity: Plaintiff can perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(c) including the ability to do the following: he can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel and crouch. He can never climb or crawl. He must avoid concentrated exposure to vibrations and hazards. He can perform simple, routine tasks and follow short, simple instructions. He can do work that needs little or no judgment, and perform simple duties that can 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 him from being in proximity to the supervisor.) He can work in proximity to co-workers but not in a cooperative or team effort. He requires a work environment that is predictable and with few work setting changes. He requires a work environment without any public contact.
Step four: Plaintiff does not have any past relevant work.
Step five: As there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.