United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER
MICHELLE L. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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. (Dkt. # 16.) As
discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's
final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice.
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.
October 2, 2014, Plaintiff applied for benefits, alleging
disability as of October 25, 1998. 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
the five-step disability evaluation process,  the ALJ found:
Step one: Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since October 2, 2014.
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.
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,