United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
MICHELLE L. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
seeks review of the denial of her application for Disability
Insurance Benefits. Plaintiff contends the administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) erred by discounting the opinion of
examining psychologist David Widlan, Ph.D.; by excluding
mental impairments at step two; and by discounting
Plaintiff's testimony and that of her husband. (Dkt. # 10
at 1-2.) As discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the
Commissioner's final decision and DISMISSES the case with
was born in 1955, has a high school diploma and some college
education, and has worked as a certified nursing assistant.
AR at 65, 70, 261. Plaintiff was last gainfully employed in
2016. Id. at 251-54.
August 2015, Plaintiff applied for benefits, alleging
disability as of May 28, 2015. AR at 227-28. Plaintiff's
application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and
Plaintiff requested a hearing. Id. at 143-46,
151-55, 159-60. After the ALJ conducted a hearing on October
13, 2017 (id. at 47-119), the ALJ issued a decision
finding Plaintiff not disabled. Id. at 16-27.
the five-step disability evaluation process,  the ALJ found:
Step one: Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date.
Step two: Plaintiff's left knee degenerative joint
disease, status post arthroscopy and partial medial
meniscectomy, is a severe impairment.
Step three: This impairment does not meet or equal the
requirements of a listed impairment.
Residual Functional Capacity: Plaintiff can perform light
work with additional limitations: she can frequently climb
ramps and stairs, but cannot climb ladders, ropes, or
scaffolds. She can frequently stoop and occasionally kneel,
crouch, and crawl. She must avoid concentrated exposure to
vibration and hazards.
Step four: Plaintiff cannot perform past relevant work.
Step five: As there are jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform,