IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DXSTRIC'.r OF OREGON 

CORA DISNEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

GEORGE J. WALL 

1336 E. Burnside 

Suite 130 

Portland, OR 97214 

(503) 236-0068 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

BILLY J, WILLIAMS 

Acting United States Attorney 

JANICE E. HEBERT 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

(503) 727-1003 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

3:16-CV-00424-BR 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 18
DAVID MORADO 

Regional Chief Counsel 

LISA GOLDOFTAS 

Special Assistant United States Attorney 

Social Security Administration 

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 615-3858 

Attorneys for Defendant 

BROWN, Judge. 

Plaintiff Cora Disney seeks judicial review of a final 

decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration (SSA) in which she denied Plaintiff's application 

for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the 

Social Security Act. This Court has jurisdiction to review the 

Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

For the reasons that follow, the Court AFFIRMS the decision 

of the Commissioner and DISMISSES this matter. 

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY 

Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on October 16, 2007, 

and alleged a disability onset date of July 1, 1984. Tr. 21. 1 

Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. An 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on May 5, 2010. 

Tr. 57. At the hearing Plaintiff and a vocational expert (VE) 

1 Citations to the official transcript of record filed by 

the Commissioner on July 12, 2016, are referred to as "Tr." 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 18
testified. Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. 

On August 5, 2010, the ALJ issued an opinion in which he 

found Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, was not entitled 

to benefits. Tr. 57-71. At some point that decision became the 

final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council 

denied Plaintiff's request for review. Tr. 21. See Sims v. 

Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07 (2000). 

Plaintiff filed a second application for SSI on July 23, 

2011, and alleged a disability onset date of July 1, 1984. 

Tr. 86. Her application was denied initially and on 

reconsideration. An ALJ held a hearing on August 6, 2014. 

Tr. 37-53. At the hearing Plaintiff and a VE testified. 

Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. 

On September 11, 2014, the ALJ issued an opinion in which he 

found Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, was not entitled 

to benefits. Tr. 21-31. On January 20, 2016, that decision 

became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals 

Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. Tr. 1-7. 

At some point Plaintiff filed a third application for SSI. 

The SSA approved Plaintiff's third application finding her 

disabled from March 10, 2016, forward. Accordingly, in this 

action Plaintiff challenges the Commissioner's finding that she 

was not disabled for the closed period of May 31, 2013, through 

the date of the second ALJ's decision on September 11, 2014. 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 18
BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff was born on May 31, 1963, and was 50 years old at 

the time of the 2014 hearing. Tr. 86. Plaintiff has an eighthgrade education. Tr. 41. She does not have any past relevant 

work experience. Tr. 30. 

Plaintiff alleges disability due to post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD), a back injury, "mental health issues," and 

multiple personalities. Tr. 86. 

Except when noted, Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ's 

summary of the medical evidence. After carefully reviewing the 

medical records, this Court adopts the ALJ's summary of the 

medical evidence. See Tr. 24-25, 27-29. 

STANDARDS 

The initial burden of proof rests on the claimant to 

establish disability. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th 

Cir. 2012). To meet this burden, a claimant must demonstrate her 

inability "to engage in any substantial gainful activity by 

reason of any medically determinable physical or mental 

impairment which . . . has lasted or can be expected to last for 

a continuous period of not less than 12 months.'' 42 U.S.C. 

§ 423(d) (1) (A). The ALJ must develop the record when there is 

ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for 

proper evaluation of the evidence. McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 4 of 18
881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 

453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

The district court must affirm the Commissioner's decision 

if it is based on proper legal standards and the findings are 

supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). See also Brewes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 

682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9ili Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence is 

"relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion." Molina, 674 F.3d. at 1110-11 

(quoting Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 

(9th Cir. 2009)). It is more than a mere scintilla [of evidence) 

but less than a preponderance. Id. (citing Valentine, 574 F.3d 

at 690). 

The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, 

resolving conflicts in the medical evidence, and resolving 

ambiguities. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 

2009) . The court must weigh all of the evidence whether it 

supports or detracts from the Commissioner's decision. Ryan v. 

Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). Even 

when the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational 

interpretation, the court must uphold the Commissioner's findings 

if they are supported by inferences reasonably drawn from the 

record. Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2012). 

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 5 of 18
Commissioner. Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F. 3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 

2006) . 

DISABILITY ANALYSIS 

I. The Regulatory Sequential Evaluation 

The Commissioner has developed a five-step sequential 

inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the 

meaning of the Act. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 

2007). See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. Each step is potentially 

dispositive. 

At Step One the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner 

determines the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful 

activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). See also Keyser v. Comm'r of 

Soc. Sec., 648 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2011). 

At Step Two the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner determines the claimant does not have any medically severe 

impairment or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.920(c). See also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724. 

At Step Three the claimant is disabled if the Commissioner 

determines the claimant's impairments meet or equal one of a 

number of listed impairments that the Commissioner acknowledges 

are so severe they preclude substantial gainful activity. 20 

C.F.R. § 416.920(a) (4) (iii). See also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724. 

The criteria for the listed impairments, known as Listings, are 

6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 6 of 18
enumerated in 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1 (Listed 

Impairments) . 

If the Commissioner proceeds beyond Step Three, she must 

assess the claimant's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC). The 

claimant's RFC is an assessment of the sustained, work-related 

physical and mental activities the claimant can still do on a 

regular and continuing basis despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.945(a). See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p. "A 

'regular and continuing basis' means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a 

week, or an equivalent schedule." SSR 96-8p, at *1. In other 

words, the Social Security Act does not require complete 

incapacity to be disabled. Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 

659 F.3d 1228, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fair v. Bowen, 885 

F.2d 597, 603 (9ili Cir. 1989)). 

At Step Four the claimant is not disabled if the 

Commissioner determines the claimant retains the RFC to perform 

work she has done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a) (4) (iv). 

See also Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724. 

If the Commissioner reaches Step Five, she must determine 

whether the claimant is able to do any other work that exists in 

the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a) (4) (v). See also 

Keyser, 648 F.3d at 724. Here the burden shifts to the 

Commissioner to show a significant number of jobs exist in the 

national economy that the claimant can perform. Lockwood v. 

7 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 7 of 18
Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The Conunissioner may satisfy this burden through the testimony of 

a VE or by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines set 

forth in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, 

appendix 2. If the Conunissioner meets this burden, the claimant 

is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g) (1). 

ALJ'S FINDINGS 

At Step One the ALJ found Plaintiff has not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since her July 23, 2012, application 

date. Tr. 24. 

At Step Two the ALJ found Plaintiff has the severe 

impairments of dysthymic disorder; borderline intellectual 

functioning; alcohol, methamphetamine, and heroin dependence in 

remission; degenerative disc disease of the spine; and 

degenerative joint disease of the knee. Tr. 24. 

At Step Three the ALJ concluded Plaintiff's impairments do 

not meet or equal the criteria for any Listed Impairment from 20 

C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, appendix 1. The ALJ found Plaintiff 

has the RFC to perform light work "except she can stand and/or 

walk for four hours in an eight-hour day." Tr. 26. The ALJ 

found Plaintiff can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, 

crawl, climb ladders and stairs, and have contact with the 

public. The ALJ found Plaintiff cannot climb ladders, ropes, or 

8 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 8 of 18
scaffolds. The ALJ also found Plaintiff ~can perform simple, 

entry-level work and cannot perform work that requires written 

instructions or written reports.• Tr. 26. 

At Step Four the ALJ concluded Plaintiff does not have any 

past relevant work. Tr. 30. 

At Step Five the ALJ found Plaintiff can perform jobs that 

exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Tr. 30. 

Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff is not disabled. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred when he (1) failed to find 

at Step Two that Plaintiff's obesity is a severe impairment, 

(2) failed to find at Step Two that Plaintiff's reading 

limitation is a severe impairment, and (3) partially rejected 

Plaintiff's Adult Function Report. Plaintiff also contends the 

Appeals Council erred when it concluded the opinion of treating 

physician, Peter Hatcher, M.D., did not provide a basis to review 

the ALJ's decision. 

I. The ALJ did not err at Step Two 

At Step Two the claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner 

determines the claimant does not have any medically severe 

impairment or combination of impairments. Stout, 454 F.3d at 

1052. See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509, 404.1520(a) (4) (ii). A 

severe impairment "significantly limits" a claimant's "physical 

9 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 9 of 18
or mental ability to do basic work activities.'' 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1521(a). See also Ukolov, 420 F.3d at 1003. The ability 

to do basic work activities is defined as ''the abilities and 

aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.'' 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a), 

(b) . Plaintiff has the burden at Step Two to establish the 

existence of a severe impairment and to show any error is 

harmful. 

The Ninth Circuit has held when the ALJ has resolved Step 

Two in a claimant's favor, any error in designating specific 

impairments as severe at Step Two does not prejudice a claimant 

if the ALJ considered the impairments when formulating his 

assessment of Plaintiff's RFC. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 

682 (9th Cir. 2005) (any error in omitting an impairment from the 

severe impairments identified at Step Two was harmless when Step 

Two was resolved in claimant's favor). 

A. Obesity 

Plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred at Step Two when he 

failed to find Plaintiff's obesity is a severe impairment. 

Plaintiff notes she has gained weight since the ALJ's 

decision in 2010. In August 2014 Plaintiff's knee surgeon noted 

Plaintiff is morbidly obese with a body mass index of 45.37. 

Tr. 598. The ALJ specifically considered Plaintiff's obesity and 

noted the record did not indicate it was a severe impairment. In 

addition, the record contains few references to Plaintiff's 

10 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 10 of 18
obesity and does not include any opinion by a medical 

professional that Plaintiff's obesity caused significant 

limitations in her ability to work. 

The Court, therefore, concludes on this record that the 

ALJ did not err when he failed to find at Step Two that 

Plaintiff's obesity is a severe impairment. 

B. Reading Limitation 

Plaintiff also alleges the ALJ erred at Step Two when 

he failed to find her reading limitation is a severe impairment. 

Plaintiff, however, does not point to any objective evidence in 

the record to support her assertion that she has a reading 

limitation that significantly limitation her ability to work. In 

addition, the record does not contain any opinion by a medical or 

nonmedical treating source that Plaintiff suffers from a severe 

reading limitation. Moreover, Plaintiff testified at the 2014 

hearing that she is able to read a newspaper, that she completed 

eighth grade, and that she is able to read a grade level. Tr. 

42. 

The Court, therefore, concludes on this record that the 

ALJ did not err when he failed to find at Step Two that 

Plaintiff's reading limitation is a severe impairment. 

II. The ALJ did not err when he partially rejected Plaintiff's 

Adult Function Report. 

Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred by failing to provide clear 

and convincing reasons for partially rejecting Plaintiff's 

11 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 11 of 18
September 9, 2012, Adult Function Report. 

In Cotton v. Bowen the Ninth Circuit established two 

requirements for a claimant to present credible symptom 

testimony: The claimant must produce objective medical evidence 

of an impairment or impairments, and she must show the impairment 

or combination of impairments could reasonably be expected to 

produce some degree of symptom. Cotton, 799 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 

1986), aff'd in Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 

1991). The claimant, however, need not produce objective medical 

evidence of the actual symptoms or their severity. 

F.3d at 1284. 

Smolen, 80 

If the claimant satisfies the above test and there is not 

any affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject the 

claimant's pain testimony only if he provides clear and 

convincing reasons for doing so. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 

750 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Lester v. Chater, 81 F. 3d 821, 834 (9th 

Cir. 1995)). General assertions that the claimant's testimony is 

not credible are insufficient. Id. The ALJ must identify "what 

testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the 

claimant's complaints." Id. (quoting Lester, 81 F. 3d at 834) . 

In her Adult Function Report Plaintiff stated her daily 

routine includes making her bed, making meals, cleaning, and 

looking for work. Tr. 206. Plaintiff indicated she does not 

have any problems with self-care but she "stays home more often 

12 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 12 of 18
due to medical condition." Tr. 205. Plaintiff noted she is able 

to wash dishes, clean, and vacuum, but doing those things takes 

her all day and she can no longer walk for a mile or "stand for 

hours." Tr. 206-7. Plaintiff stated she is able to use public 

transportation, to pay bills, to count change, and to use checks 

or money orders. Tr. 208. Plaintiff indicated she "can't read, 

walk, [or] stand" since she began suffering from her impairments. 

Plaintiff stated her conditions affect her ability to complete 

tasks, to concentrate, to understand, and to remember things. 

Tr. 210. Plaintiff stated she can walk a block before needing to 

stop and rest for five-to-ten minutes, her ability to concentrate 

"depends on topic of environment," and she can sometimes follow 

spoken instructions. Tr. 210. 

The ALJ found Plaintiff's "medically determinable 

impairments could reasonably be expected to cause some symptoms," 

but Plaintiff's "statements concerning the intensity, persistence 

and limiting effects of [her] symptoms are not entirely 

credible." Tr. 27. The ALJ noted the record documented a 

history of Plaintiff's complaints about pain with "minimal 

objective findings." Tr. 27. For example, Plaintiff's back 

surgeries occurred approximately 20 years before the ALJ's 2014 

decision. Plaintiff was placed on a chronic pain-management 

regimen, was weaned off narcotics in April 2011, and was 

prescribed amitriptyline in August 2011. Tr. 307. Plaintiff, 

13 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 13 of 18
however, did not receive any treatment for her back pain after 

she filed her application for SSI in July 2012. Tr. 28. The ALJ 

also noted Plaintiff reported to urgent care in July 2014 with 

left knee pain after a slip and fall. The ALJ noted Plaintiff 

was scheduled to have left-knee surgery on August 11, 2014, and 

her doctor reported the typical recovery time was six-to-eight 

weeks. The ALJ noted the evidence relating to Plaintiff's 

alleged mental-health impairments is "scant," and Plaintiff 

testified she has not received mental-health treatment since 

2012. The record also reflects normal mental-status examination 

findings during the relevant period. Tr. 522. 

The ALJ found Plaintiff's activities of daily living suggest 

greater functioning than Plaintiff alleges. As noted, Plaintiff 

reports she is able to perform all of her personal care herself, 

to make simple meals, to do household chores, to use public 

transportation, to shop, and to attend Alcoholics Anonymous 

meetings. In addition, although Plaintiff stated in her Adult 

Function Report that she cannot read, she testified at the 

hearing that she completed eighth grade, reads at grade level, 

and can read the newspaper. 

On this record the Court finds the ALJ provided clear and 

convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the 

record for finding Plaintiff's Adult Function Report was only 

partially credible. The Court, therefore, concludes the ALJ did 

14 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 14 of 18
not err when he partially rejected Plaintiff's statement. 

III. The Appeals Council did not err when it concluded 

Dr. Hatcher's opinion did not provide a basis to review the 

ALJ's decision. 

On May 19, 2015, almost nine months after the hearing and 

eight months after the ALJ issued his opinion, Dr. Hatcher wrote 

a letter in which he noted he has been Plaintiff's primary care 

physician since November 2014. Dr. Hatcher stated it was his 

medical opinion that Plaintiff 

will not be able to ambulate effectively within 

the next 12 months due [to) her diagnosis of 

severe osteoarthritis of the knee. Despite 

partial knee replacement surgery on each knee in 

the last 12 months, [Plaintiff's) recovery has 

been poor, her balance and mobility are severely 

compromised and her rehabilitation prospects are 

poor. Because of ongoing and severe pain in her 

knee . [Plaintiff) is bound to a wheelchair 

and reliant on caregivers to get around. 

[Plaintiff's) high level of pain and fatigue 

inhibits her ability to focus or function at a 

normal level. Her knee arthritis, rotator cuff 

tear and her marked psychiatric difficulties as 

well prevent her from being able to work at this 

time. [Plaintiff) is unable to lift more than 5 

pounds, and can only lift 5 pounds occasionally. 

[Plaintiff) is unable to push her wheelchair on 

her own or complete physically demanding tasks. 

Pl.'s Brief, Ex. 1 at 2. 

Plaintiff submitted Dr. Hatcher's letter to the Appeals 

Council in June 2015. 

On January 20, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's 

request for review of the ALJ's decision. In its denial the 

Appeals Council noted it had reviewed Dr. Hatcher's letter but 

15 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 15 of 18
concluded it did "not affect [the ALJ's] decision about whether 

you were disabled beginning on or before September 11, 2014, 

because the information in the letter "was about a later time." 

Tr. 2. 

The Ninth Circuit has held 

when a claimant submits evidence for the first 

time to the Appeals Council, which considers the 

evidence in denying review of the ALJ's decision, 

the new evidence is part of the administrative 

record, which the district court must consider in 

determining whether the Commissioner's decision is 

supported by substantial evidence. 

Brewes, 682 F.3d at 1159-60. 

Plaintiff asserts Dr. Hatcher's May 2015 opinion establishes 

the Commissioner's decision was not based on substantial evidence 

in the record. Defendant, on the other hand, contends 

Dr. Hatcher's opinion does not establish that Plaintiff suffered 

a severe medically determinable impairment lasting for at least 

12 months during the relevant period, and, therefore, 

Dr. Hatcher's opinion fails to establish that the Commissioner's 

decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 

Defendant asserts Dr. Hatcher's opinion was not 

retrospective, and he did not address the relevant period ending 

September 11, 2014. Defendant points out that Dr. Hatcher's May 

2015 letter specifically discusses Plaintiff's ability "to 

ambulate effectively within the next 12 months." Emphasis added. 

Similarly, Dr. Hatcher opined Plaintiff is "unable to work at 

16 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 16 of 18
this time" (i.e., May 2015). In addition, Dr. Hatcher's opinions 

and evaluation in the letter are all written in the present tense 

and, therefore, reference Plaintiff's restrictions as of May 

2015. Although Dr. Hatcher notes he is "familiar with our care 

of [Plaintiff) since 2010 when she established care at the 

Multnomah County Health Department," Dr. Hatcher was not 

Plaintiff's treating physician until November 2014, which is 

after the relevant period. 

As noted, the initial burden of proof rests on the claimant 

to establish disability. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1110. To meet this 

burden, Plaintiff must demonstrate her inability "to engage in 

any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment which . . has lasted 

or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less 

than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d) (1) (A). The Court concludes 

Dr. Hatcher's May 2015 opinion does not establish Plaintiff 

suffered a severe medically determinable impairment lasting for 

at least 12 months during the relevant period. The Court, 

therefore, concludes the newly-submitted evidence fails to 

establish that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by 

substantial evidence in the record. 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the 

17 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 17 of 18
Commissioner and DISMISSES this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 10th day of February, 2017. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

18 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00424-BR Document 16 Filed 02/10/17 Page 18 of 18