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

testimony
plaintifftestimony

Related Cases

Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134
View Case »
Webb v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 368 F.3d 629, 97 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 179, 2004 Fed.App. 0144P
View Case »
Henricksen v. Braicks, 137 F.2d 632, 43-2 USTC P 9582, 31 A.F.T.R. 465
View Case »
Wells Fargo & Company v. United States, 957 F.3d 840, 125 A.F.T.R.2d 2020-1855, 2020-1 USTC P 50,133
View Case »
Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue., 401 U.S. 939, 91 S.Ct. 936 (Mem), 28 L.Ed.2d 219
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

De Lisle v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2021 WL 5162533

Facts

Terry Lynn De Lisle filed applications for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, alleging a disability beginning in March 2008. Her SSDI claim was dismissed after she amended her alleged onset date, which made her ineligible for those benefits. The ALJ evaluated her claims based on severe impairments of morbid obesity and asthma, ultimately determining that she had the residual functional capacity to perform her past work as a secretary, leading to the denial of her SSI application.

Plaintiff filed an Application for Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) benefits on March 16, 2017, and an Application for SSI benefits on October 11, 2017, alleging a disability beginning on March 29, 2008.

Issue

Did the ALJ err in denying De Lisle's application for SSI benefits by failing to properly evaluate her subjective symptom testimony and the opinions of her medical providers?

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in failing to give clear and convincing reasons to discount her subjective symptom testimony, in failing to give germane reasons to reject the opinions of Penny Burkett, PA-C, her physician's assistant, in failing to consider the opinion of Keith Cunningham, M.D., and in improperly making assumptions about the Vocational Examiner's (“VE”) testimony.

Rule

An ALJ's factual findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, and the court may only set aside the Commissioner's disability determination if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. The ALJ must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting a claimant's subjective symptom testimony.

An ALJ's factual findings “shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.”

Analysis

The court found that the ALJ properly evaluated the medical evidence and provided specific reasons for discounting De Lisle's subjective symptom testimony. The ALJ noted inconsistencies between her testimony and the medical records, including her ability to perform daily activities and the control of her asthma and sleep apnea. The ALJ also provided germane reasons for giving little weight to the opinions of her physician's assistant, which were contradicted by the medical evidence.

The ALJ found that Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged, but that her statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not consistent with the medical evidence, including her own statements and testimony regarding activities of daily living.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error.

The Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's nondisability determination.

Who won?

The Social Security Administration prevailed in the case because the court found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ properly evaluated the evidence and testimony presented.

The Commissioner argues that the ALJ's opinion is free of harmful error and must be affirmed.

You must be