R.W.K. v. Social Security Administration

Anchorage, Alaska social security disability lawyer represented Plaintiff seeking review of the denial of his application for social security disability benefits by HHS.



On June 9, 2016, plaintiff filed an application for benefits under Title II, alleging that he became disabled on May 12, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that he is disabled due to PTSD, ankle problems, and hearing loss. Plaintiff's application was denied initially, and he requested an administrative hearing. After a hearing on March 28, 2018, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied plaintiff's application on May 10, 2018. Plaintiff sought review by the Appeals Council, which remanded the matter to the ALJ on October 29, 2019. On May 20, 2020, the ALJ held a second administrative hearing, and on June 3, 2020, the ALJ again denied plaintiff's application. Plaintiff again sought review by the Appeals Council, and on March 12, 2021, the matter was again remanded to the ALJ. On August 2, 2021, the ALJ held a third administrative hearing, after which plaintiff's application was again denied. On October 31, 2022, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's third request for review, thereby making the ALJ's October 4, 2021, decision the final decision of defendant. On December 30, 2022, plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review of defendant's final decision.



* * *



The ALJ then applied the five-step sequential analysis used to determine whether an individual is disabled.[4]



At step one, the ALJ found that plaintiff "did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from his alleged onset date of May 12, 2015 through his date last insured of December 31, 2020 ”[5]



At step two, the ALJ found that "[t]hrough the date last insured, the claimant had the following severe impairments: status post cervical spine fusion; status post carpal tunnel

syndrome release; hearing loss; [and] posttraumatic stress disorder ”[6] The ALJ found plaintiff's pes cavus, dry eyes, and skin lesions nonsevere.[7]



At step three, the ALJ found that "[t]hrough the date last insured, the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1....”[8] The ALJ considered Listings 1.15 (disorders of the skeletal spine resulting in compromise of a nerve root), 1.16 (lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in compromise of the cauda equina), 11.14 (peripheral neuropathy), 1.18 (traumatic brain injury), 2.10 (hearing loss not treated with cochlear implantation), and 12.15 (trauma- and stressor-related disorders).[9] The ALJ considered the "paragraph B” criteria and found that plaintiff had a mild limitation in understanding, remembering or applying information; a moderate limitation in interacting with others; a moderate limitation as to concentration, persistence, or pace; and a moderate limitation as to adapting or managing oneself.[10]



"Between steps three and four, the ALJ must, as an intermediate step, assess the claimant's RFC.” Bray v. Comm'r of Social Security Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222-23 (9th Cir. 2009). The ALJ found that



through the date last insured, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) except: he can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; he is limited to frequent right handling and fingering; he must avoid moderate exposure to excessive industrial noise; he must avoid all exposure to unprotected heights; and he must avoid concentrated exposure to hazardous machinery. Work is limited to only occasional changes in the work setting with only occasional interaction with the public, coworkers, and supervisors.[11]



The ALJ discounted plaintiff's pain and symptom statements because they were not consistent with the medical evidence.[12]



The ALJ gave Dr. Merrill's opinion significant weight.[13] The ALJ gave Dr. Lewy's opinion significant weight.[14] The ALJ gave Dr. Gaeta's opinion significant weight.[15] The ALJ gave Dr. Lebeau's opinion moderate weight.[16] The ALJ gave Dr. Lace's opinion moderate weight.[17] The ALJ gave Dr. Valette's opinion moderate weight.[18] And, the ALJ gave some weight to the opinions of Dr. Baxendale and Dr. Ozer.[19]



The ALJ gave some weight to plaintiff's 80% VA rating.[20] And, the ALJ gave some weight to the VA's denial of plaintiff's request for vocational retraining as a fishing guide.[21]



The ALJ gave some weight to the lay testimony of Ray Rush, plaintiff's friend.[22]



At step four, the ALJ found that "[t]hrough the date last insured, the claimant was unable to perform any past relevant work ”[23]



At step five, the ALJ found that "[t]hrough the date last insured, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant could have performed[,]” such as a laundry worker.[24]



Thus, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff "was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from May 12, 2015, the alleged onset date, through December 31, 2020, the date last insured ”[25]...

Reversed