Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190917_0000667.EWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-06 21:09:31
Document Index: 168752418

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

DONNIE LEE H., Plaintiff,
BEFORE THE COURT are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 10 and 12. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Plaintiff is represented by Attorney Jeffrey Schwab. The Defendant is represented by Special Assistant United States Attorney Joseph J. Langkamer. The Court has reviewed the administrative record, the parties' completed briefing, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 10.
Plaintiff Donnie Lee H.[1] filed for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits on September 29, 2015, alleging an onset date of February 1, 2013.[2] Tr. 577-87. Benefits were denied initially, Tr. 499-503, and upon reconsideration, Tr. 506-13. A hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) was conducted on February 8, 2017. Tr. 389-424. Plaintiff was represented by counsel and testified at the hearing. Id. The ALJ denied benefits, Tr. 346-65, and the Appeals Council denied review. Tr. 1. The matter is now before this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g); 1383(c)(3).
Plaintiff was 39 years old at the time of the hearing. Tr. 358, 605. He graduated from high school, completed a CNA class in 2003, and testified that he tried to go to college for his AA degree. Tr. 394, 610. He lives with his parents for six months out of the year, and by himself for six months of the year. Tr. 394. Plaintiff served in the U.S. Navy for four years. Tr. 394. Plaintiff has work history as a fast food cashier, home attendant, nurse aide, maintenance mechanic, dump truck driver, and station attendant. Tr. 411-15. He testified that he could not work or go to school during the relevant adjudicatory period because of trouble focusing and concentrating, and chronic nausea. Tr. 396-97.
Plaintiff testified that he can only walk twenty minutes before he has to sit; he can sit up to thirty minutes before he has to get up or change position; gets four to five hours of sleep a night; has depression; has anxiety attacks when he leaves the house; is forgetful; has blurry vision for periods of time due to his blood sugar; has memory loss; experiences stress and anxiety; has muscle spasms and cramps; has feet numbness and pain; and has balance issues. Tr. 398-400, 404-409. He also testified that he walks his dog less than a quarter mile, doesn't do any heavy lifting, does chores in small increments, and does not drive because of his diabetes. Tr. 403-05.
If the severity of the claimant's impairment does not meet or exceed the severity of the enumerated impairments, the Commissioner must pause to assess the claimant's “residual functional capacity.” Residual functional capacity (RFC), defined generally as the claimant's ability to perform physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite his or her limitations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1), is relevant to both the fourth and fifth steps of the analysis.
At step five, the Commissioner considers whether, in view of the claimant's RFC, the claimant is capable of performing other work in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). In making this determination, the Commissioner must also consider vocational factors such as the claimant's age, education and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant is capable of adjusting to other work, the Commissioner must find that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1). If the claimant is not capable of adjusting to other work, analysis concludes with a finding that the claimant is disabled and is therefore entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g)(1), 416.920(g)(1).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). If the analysis proceeds to step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish that (1) the claimant is capable of performing other work; and (2) such work “exists in significant numbers in the national economy.” 20 ...