United States District Court, D. Oregon
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
M. Coffin Judge.
brings this proceeding to obtain judicial review of the
Commissioner's final decision denying plaintiff's
application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
was 51 years old at the time of his alleged onset date. He
finished the 10th grade and earned his GED.
found that plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
asthma; degenerative disc disease, cyclical vomiting
syndrome; adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and
depressed mood; generalized anxiety disorder; post -traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD); fibromyalgia; history of marijuana
abuse; and history of methamphetamine abuse.
found that plaintiff had mild impairments in activities of
daily living; moderate limitations in social functioning; and
mild to moderate impairments in the areas of maintaining
concentration, persistence and pace in the workplace.
found a Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform light
level work, with the following additional limitations: no
public contact; no more than occasional contact with
co-workers; no work more complex than jobs with a Specific
Vocational Preparation level of 1 or 2; no exposure to even
moderate pulmonary irritants; and allowance for bathroom
breaks 3 to 4 times a day.
found that plaintiff could not do his past relevant work.
After taking vocational expert testimony, the ALJ found at
Step 5 that plaintiff could perform other work in the economy
including the jobs of bakery line worker and packing line
found plaintiff only partially credible, gave several reasons
for such finding, and accorded plaintiff s reports and
statements only some weight. TR. 33. Plaintiff does not
challenge this finding.
argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of 3 of
plaintiff's treating doctors.
plaintiff attempts to categorize defendant's argument as
not consistent with the applicable legal standards, defendant
does present an argument that is consistent with the
applicable legal standards, i.e., that the ALJ's decision
is supported by substantial evidence and free of harmful
legal error. P. 2 and p. 12 of Defendant's Brief (#27).
Plaintiff's Treating Psychiatrist, Dr. Feinman
Feinman is a treating treating psychiatrist. In May of 2014,
she opined, as applicable here, that plaintiff had moderately
severe to severe impairment in his ability to maintain
attention and concentration for two straight hours, to work
in coordination or proximity to others, to make simple
work-related decisions, and to complete a normal workday or
workweek without psychologically related symptoms. She stated
that plaintiff had mostly moderate impairment in social
functioning, but moderate to severe impairment in his ability
to get along with coworkers and peers without distracting
them or ...