United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER REVERSING THE COMMISSIONER’S FINAL
DECISION AND REMANDING THE CASE FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
seeks review of the denial of his applications for
Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance
Benefits, and requests remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in addressing two medical
opinions. Dkt. 9. As discussed below, the Court
REVERSES the Commissioner’s final
decision and REMANDS the matter for further
administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
is currently 46 years old, has a high school education, and
has worked as a pawnbroker, supervisor, laborer, cook, sales
attendant, hotel clerk, and night auditor. Dkt. 7, Admin.
Record (AR) 25. Plaintiff applied for benefits in May 2015,
alleging disability as of September 1, 2014. AR 109.
Plaintiff’s applications were denied initially and on
reconsideration. AR 107, 108, 133, 134. After the ALJ
conducted a hearing in July 2017, the ALJ issued a decision
finding Plaintiff not disabled. AR 33, 13-27.
the five-step disability evaluation process,  the ALJ found:
Step one: Plaintiff has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since the September 2014 alleged
Step two: Plaintiff has the following severe
impairments: obesity, lumbar spine disease, thyroid disease,
sleep apnea, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder.
Step three: These impairments do not meet or
equal the requirements of a listed impairment.
Residual Functional Capacity: Plaintiff can
perform light work, further limited to frequently climbing
ramps and stairs and occasionally climbing ladders, ropes,
and scaffolds. He can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and
crawl. He must avoid concentrated exposure to hazards. He can
have no public contact and only occasional contact with
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, Plaintiff is not disabled.
AR 16-27. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s
request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the