Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffappealhearingtestimonyjudicial reviewcredibility
plaintiffstatuteappealhearingobjectionjudicial review

Related Cases

Harlan v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 7015706
View Case »
Byerlite Corp. v. Williams, 286 F.2d 285, 6 A.F.T.R.2d 6069, 61-1 USTC P 9138
View Case »
Roth Steel Tube Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 68 T.C. 213
View Case »
Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Motter, 66 F.2d 309, 3 USTC P 1142, 12 A.F.T.R. 996, 1934-1 C.B. 183
View Case »
Seda v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 82 T.C. No. 36, 82 T.C. 484, Tax Ct. Rep. (CCH) 41,067
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Coady v. Commissioner of Social Sec., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3655512

Facts

The plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI in October 2005, which were denied initially and upon reconsideration. After a de novo hearing in June 2008, the ALJ determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to benefits, leading to an appeal to the Appeals Council, which denied review in October 2008. The plaintiff claimed that her hypertension, migraines, and renal failure were severe impairments that limited her ability to work, and she contested the ALJ's credibility assessment and the handling of her treating physician's opinion.

Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI on October, 2005. Those applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff's request for a de novo hearing before the ALJ was granted and an evidentiary hearing was held in June, 2008. Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel at the hearing, testified as did Vocational Expert Janice Bending, Ph.D. In July 2008, the ALJ determined plaintiff was not entitled to benefits. Plaintiff pursued an appeal to the Appeals Council, which denied review in October 2008.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the ALJ properly assessed the severity of the plaintiff's impairments and whether the ALJ's credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on the following grounds: First, she claims the ALJ should have found her hypertension and migraines to be severe impairments because they lead to more than minimal functional limitations, and these conditions remained relevant after her August 2006 aneurysm surgery since the aneurysm on the left side of her brain remained untreated.

Rule

Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of no disability, as outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The ALJ must provide specific reasons for the weight given to a treating physician's opinion, supported by evidence in the case record.

Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court's sole function under the statute is to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's findings of no disability.

Analysis

The court found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the plaintiff did not provide evidence substantiating her claims of severe impairments. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony regarding her symptoms and the lack of medical evidence linking her untreated aneurysm to her reported migraines. Additionally, the court noted that the ALJ did not err in failing to fully develop the record or in assessing the weight given to the treating physician's opinion.

Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that the Commissioner's findings of no disability are supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff's first objection is not well-taken because she points to no evidence in the record which substantiates her claim that her hypertension and migraines caused 'more than minimal functional limitations' following her August 2006 surgery.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision denying the plaintiff's benefits, concluding that the findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE HEREIN the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The final decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits is hereby AFFIRMED.

Who won?

The Commissioner of Social Security prevailed in the case because the court found substantial evidence supporting the decision to deny the plaintiff's application for benefits.

The Court finds that the Judge has accurately set forth the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the particular facts of this case and agrees with the Judge that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

You must be