United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
A. RUSSO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Lawrence DeYoung brings this action for judicial review of
the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying his application for
Title II Disability Insurance Benefits. All parties have
consented to allow a Magistrate Judge enter final orders and
judgment in this case in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons set
forth below, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed and
this case is dismissed.
1955, plaintiff alleges disability beginning December 31,
2012, due to hearing loss, vision problems, depression, and
post-traumatic stress disorder. Tr. 162, 201. On April 17,
2015, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued
a decision finding plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 15-28. After
the Appeals Council denied his request for review, plaintiff
filed a complaint in this Court. Tr. 1-6.
one, the ALJ found plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since the alleged onset date. Tr. 17. At
step two, the ALJ determined the following impairments were
medically determinable and severe: “[g]laucoma; hearing
loss accommodated with hearing aids; posttraumatic stress
disorder; depression.” Id. At step three, the
ALJ found that plaintiff's impairments, either singly or
in combination, did not meet or equal the requirements of a
listed impairment. Tr. 18.
next resolved plaintiff had the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform work at any exertional level,
but with certain non-exertional limitations:
He can perform [jobs] that do not require near visual acuity.
He can perform simple routine tasks. He can work in [jobs]
that do not require direct work with the public. He can have
superficial coworker contact. He can tolerate moderate noise
levels and must avoid concentrated exposure to hazards.
four, the ALJ found plaintiff was unable to perform his past
relevant work. Tr. 26. At step five, the ALJ concluded
plaintiff could perform a significant number of jobs in the
national and local economy despite his impairments, such as
yard worker and tree planter. Tr. 28.
argues the ALJ erred by: (1) rejecting medical evidence from
Gary Gaffield, D.O.; and (2) rendering an invalid step five
Medical Opinion Evidence
asserts the ALJ wrongfully discredited Dr. Gaffield's
medical opinion. There are three types of acceptable medical
opinions in Social Security cases: those from treating,
examining, and non-examining doctors. Lester v.
Chater,81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). To reject the
uncontroverted opinion of an examining doctor, the ALJ must
present clear and convincing reasons, supported by
substantial evidence. Id. (citation omitted). If an
examining doctor's opinion is contradicted by another