Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Jason C. v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

June 10, 2019

JASON C., Plaintiff,


          Brian A. Tsuchida Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff appeals the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. He contends the ALJ erred by (1) failing at step three of the sequential analysis to determine that he met or equaled the listing for a depressive disorder (Listing 12.04) and a disorder of the spine (Listing 1.04)[1]; (2) giving too little weight to the examining opinion of psychologist Katrina L. Higgins, Psy. D.; and (3) assessing an incomplete RFC, which rendered the vocational expert's testimony inadequate and left the decision unsupported by substantial evidence. Dkt. 12, at 5-10. The Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision and DISMISSES the case with prejudice.


         Plaintiff is currently 38 years old, graduated high school, and attended some classes at a technical college. In 2014, he applied for SSI benefits, alleging disability as of January 1, 2014 After his application was denied initially and on reconsideration, the ALJ conducted a hearing in July 2017, at which a medical expert testified. Tr. 34-78. In a September 2017 decision, the ALJ determined at step one of the five-step evaluation process that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since SSI application date, at step two that plaintiff had the severe impairments of obesity and right shoulder abnormality, and at step three that those impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of a listed impairment. Tr. 17-23. The ALJ determined that plaintiff has a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform medium work that does not require right dominant overhead reaching and that does not require more than frequent right reaching in other directions. Tr. 23-25. The ALJ determined at step four that plaintiff had no past, relevant work and at step five that jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform. Tr. 25-27. The ALJ therefore found that plaintiff is not disabled. Tr. 27. Because the Appeals Council denied review, the ALJ's decision is the Commissioner's final decision.


         The Court will reverse the ALJ's decision only if it was not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole or if the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ's decision may not be reversed on account of an error that is harmless. Id. at 1111. Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Court must uphold the Commissioner's interpretation. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002).

         Plaintiff has submitted a poorly supported brief that fails to demonstrate that the ALJ erred in any meaningful way.

         1. Step Three Analysis

         Plaintiff argues that he meets Listing 12.04 for a depressive disorder and Listing 1.04 for a disorder of the spine but specifies neither the criteria nor how any subsection might qualify him to be deemed presumptively disabled. See Dkt. 12, at 5-6. The Court rejects counsel's conclusory argumentation.

         The Commissioner “explicitly has set the medical criteria defining the listed impairments at a higher level of severity than the statutory standard.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990). “Listed impairments set such strict standards because they automatically end the five-step inquiry, before residual functional capacity is even considered.” Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, for a claimant to show that an impairment satisfies a listing, he “must meet all of the specified medical criteria.” Zebley, 493 U.S. at 530. “An impairment that manifests only some of the criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Id.

         Plaintiff does not even attempt to satisfy the criteria of Listing 12.04. Instead counsel cites Dr. Higgins for the broad proposition that a depressive disorder can generally result in adverse, mental symptoms. Dkt. 12, at 5. The cited portions of Dr. Higgins's opinion, however, undermine the proposition that plaintiff meets a listing. Dkt. 12, at 5 (citing Tr. 392, 398). Dr. Higgins noted her concern that plaintiff was feigning his memory problems and learning disabilities because there was no reasonable explanation for the discrepancies from the 2014 test she administered and a contrasting 2010 test. Tr. 392, 398. It is careless for counsel to support meeting Listing 12.04 by citing the conclusion of examining psychologist Stephanie Hanson, Ph.D., that plaintiff is unable to work. Dkt. 12, at 5 (citing Tr. 425). First, the ultimate determination of disability is a question reserved for the Commissioner. Second, citing Dr. Hanson's conclusion does not address the specific criteria of Listing 12.04. Third, at the hearing the medical expert explained, and plaintiff does not contest, why plaintiff did not meet Criteria B of a listing: 2010 testing showed he had no limitations such that the 2014 test showing low IQ and poor concentration could not be explained absent head trauma or significant substance abuse; plaintiff's mental statuses were fairly normal throughout the record; his activities of daily living were fairly normal; there was no indication that he had difficulty interacting with others; there was no indication of problems with concentration, persistence, or maintaining pace; there was no indication of inability to pay attention or of being distracted; and there was no indication of an inability to adapt or to manage himself. Dkt. 42-43. Moreover, the medical expert and the ALJ rejected Dr. Hanson's conclusions as inconsistent with Dr. Hanson's concurrently administered mental status exam. Tr. 21, 44; compare Tr. 422-25 with Tr. 428-30.

         Plaintiff cites no record evidence for the proposition that he meets Listing 1.04 for a disorder of the spine. The Court will not scour the record to look for evidence of plaintiff's ability to meet Listing 1.04 when plaintiff's counsel has failed to cite the record even in a cursory manner.

         The Court finds the ALJ's step three determination that plaintiff did not meet or equal Listing 12.04 and Listing 1.04 was supported by substantial evidence and was not the result of harmful legal error.

         2. Evaluation of Dr. Higgins's Opinion and ...

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.