A woman with PTSD and depression was found able to work and denied disability benefits.

Record source: CourtListener

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MYRIAH M.,1 No. 3:25-cv-00789-HZ Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. Lisa Lang Lisa Lang Law LLC 5200 SW Meadows Rd., Suite 150 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Attorney for Plaintiff Kevin Danielson Assistant United States Attorney District of Oregon 1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 1 In the interest of privacy, this Opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party or parties in this case. Where applicable, this Opinion uses the same designation for a non-governmental party’s immediate family member. David Priddy Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 Attorneys for Defendant HERNÁNDEZ, Senior District Judge: Plaintiff Myriah M. brings this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision to deny disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court affirms the Commissioner’s decision. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff applied for DIB on December 12, 2023, alleging an onset date of October 10, 2018. Tr. 53.2 Plaintiff’s date last insured (“DLI”) is June 30, 2022. Tr. 53. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Tr. 68, 86. On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff appeared with counsel for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Tr. 34. On March 11, 2025, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 30. The Appeals Council denied review. Tr. 1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges disability based on posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), major depressive disorder, radiculopathy and sciatica of her left lower extremity, retinal migraines, tension headaches, thoracolumbar strain, intervertebral disc syndrome, and a “rib condition.” Tr. 2 Citations to “Tr.” refer to the page(s) indicated in the official transcript of the administrative record, filed herein as Docket No. 8. 206. At the time of her date last insured, she was 36 years old. Tr. 29. She has at least a high school education and past relevant work experience as a server. Tr. 28-29. SEQUENTIAL DISABILITY EVALUATION A claimant is disabled if they are unable 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), 1382c(a)(3)(A). Disability claims are evaluated according to a five-step procedure. See Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2009) (in social security cases, agency uses five-step procedure to determine disability). The claimant bears the ultimate burden of proving disability. Id. In the first step, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” If so, the claimant is not disabled. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). In step two, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a “medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140–41; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If not, the claimant is not disabled. Id. In step three, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant’s impairments, singly or in combination, meet or equal “one of a number of listed impairments that the [Commissioner] acknowledges are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity.” Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If so, the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled; if not, the Commissioner proceeds to step four. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141. In step four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant, despite any impairment(s), has the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform their “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant can perform past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. In step five, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant can perform other work. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141–42; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e)–(f), 416.920(e)–(f). If the Commissioner meets their burden and proves that the claimant can perform other work that exists in the national economy, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566, 416.966. THE ALJ’S DECISION At step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity after her alleged onset date through the date last insured. Tr. 19. Next, at steps two and three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: “a depressive disorder, an anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).” Tr. 19. However, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the severity of a listed impairment. Tr. 21. At step four, the ALJ concluded that through the DLI, Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c) with the following limitations: She can occasionally climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She can frequently climb ramps and stairs, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. She can tolerate occasional exposure to extreme cold, vibration, and hazards such as unprotected heights and moving mechanical machinery. She can understand, remember, and carry out simple and detailed tasks that can be learned in 30 days or less. She can tolerate occasional changes in a routine work setting. She can tolerate occasional interaction with the general public, coworkers, and supervisors. Tr. 22-23. Because of these limitations, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work. Tr. 28. But at step five, the ALJ found that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform, such as hand packager, warehouse worker, and food service worker. Tr. 29. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled. Tr. 30.

Official opinion source