Robledo v. Astrue, No. 3:2009cv05303 - Document 17 (W.D. Wash. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, adopting Report and Recommendation re 16 . Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 ROLDAN ROBLEDO, JR., Case No. C09-5303RJB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant. 17 18 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 19 Dkt. 15. The court has considered the relevant record, including the objections of plaintiff, and the 20 remainder of the file herein. 21 In this appeal of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny plaintiff s 22 applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, the magistrate judge 23 issued a Report and Recommendation, on January 13, 2010, recommending that the court affirm the 24 administrative decision. Dkt. 15. 25 In the Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that (1) the ALJ weighed the 26 conflicting medical evidence and properly relied on the evidence in the record as a whole, including 27 plaintiff s testimony, plaintiff s daily activities, the medical record as a whole, and the opinion of Dr. 28 Woods, to establish plaintiff s residual functional capacity; (2) the ALJ properly relied on the medical ORDER Page - 1 1 evidence to limit the effect of plaintiff s mother s statements about plaintiff s problems with pace; (3) the 2 ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff s residual functional capacity; and (4) the ALJ s step 4 findings properly 3 assessed plaintiff s past relevant work and his ability to perform at that level during the relevant period. 4 Dkt. 15. 5 On January 23, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, contending 6 that the ALJ conducted an incomplete and incorrect assessment of the opinions from physicians and other 7 mental health professionals about plaintiff s limitations; and that a proper review of the medical evidence 8 would show that plaintiff needed to do one thing at a time, that plaintiff needed to have a slow pace to 9 maintain accuracy, and that the symptoms of his disorders worsened the more plaintiff is pressured to 10 speed up. Dkt. 16. Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ improperly rejected plaintiff s mother s statements 11 about his reduced pace, without articulating specific and valid reasons; and ignored the mandatory 12 requirements of SSR 96-8P when determining plaintiff s residual functional capacity. Id. Finally, 13 plaintiff contends that the ALJ s step 4 findings did not comply with SSRs 00-4P and 82-62, and the 14 hypothetical presented to the vocational expert was defective. Id. 15 The court has reviewed the record de novo. A review of the medical evidence shows that the 16 findings of Drs. Julian and Lange were properly addressed by the ALJ and were incorporated into the 17 finding on residual functional capacity; Nancy Warren s opinion was conclusory and brief, and 18 unsupported by treatment notes or explanation; Larry Eckman s opinion was not consistent with the 19 medical record; and the ALJ properly assessed the medical evidence and sufficiently developed the 20 record. The ALJ addressed plaintiff s mother s opinions, and accounted for plaintiff limitations regarding 21 his reduced pace in the finding on residual functional capacity, by limiting plaintiff to short, simple work, 22 with routine instructions. The ALJ incorporated all credible impairments into the residual functional 23 capacity. Finally, plaintiff did not meet his burden to show that he was unable to return to his past 24 relevant work; and even if he had met his burden, the ALJ included all credible limitations into the 25 hypothetical questions to the vocational expert. Accordingly, the court concurs with conclusion of the 26 Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge that the decision of the Commissioner of Social 27 Security should be affirmed. 28 ORDER Page - 2 1 Therefore, it is hereby 2 ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Dkt. 15) is 3 ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, denying plaintiff s applications for 4 Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, is AFFIRMED. 5 6 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party s last known address. DATED this 24th day of February, 2010. 7 A 8 9 Robert J. Bryan United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER Page - 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
