United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER
A. TSUCHIDA, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
appeals the ALJ's decision finding him not disabled. He
contends the ALJ erred in (1) finding his leg impairments
does not medically equal Listing 1.02, and (2) assessing his
residual functional capacity (“RFC”). Dkt. 14 at
For the reasons below, the Court AFFIRMS the
Commissioner's final decision and
DISMISSES the case with prejudice.
is currently 47 years old, has a high school diploma, and has
worked as a truck driver, garbage truck driver, bus driver,
and shuttle driver. Tr. 58, 62. In January 2016, he applied
for benefits, alleging disability as of March 27, 2008. Tr.
256-57. His application was denied initially and on
reconsideration. Tr. 124-26, 128-32. The ALJ conducted a
hearing in December 2017 (Tr. 43-108), and subsequently found
Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 27-37. As the Appeals Council
denied Plaintiff's request for review, the ALJ's
decision is the Commissioner's final decision. Tr. 1-6.
the five-step disability evaluation process,  the ALJ found:
Step one: Plaintiff did not engage in
substantial gainful activity between his alleged onset date
of March 27, 2008, and his date last insured
(“DLI”) of December 31, 2013.
Step two: Through the DLI, Plaintiff's
status post left knee fracture and status post left leg
fracture were severe impairments.
Step three: Through the DLI, these
impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of a
RFC: Through the DLI, Plaintiff could
perform light work with additional limitations: he could
lift/carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
frequently. He could sit for at least six hours in an
eight-hour workday, and stand for two hours in an eight-hour
workday. He could not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. He
could occasionally climb ramps or stairs. He could
occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. He
could occasionally operate foot controls with the left foot.
He could have occasional exposure to vibration and extreme
cold temperatures. He could frequently, but not continuously,
handle and finger with the dominant right hand.
Step four: Through the DLI, Plaintiff could
not perform his past work.
Step five: As there are jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff
could perform through the DLI, he is not disabled.