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

appeal

Related Cases

Moser v. U.S.

Facts

Bonnie Moser filed applications for DIB and SSI benefits, claiming she became unable to work due to chronic pain and various physical and mental impairments. Her applications were initially denied, and an ALJ later confirmed the denial, stating that Moser had the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work despite her severe impairments. The ALJ's decision was based on a review of medical and non-medical evidence, including Moser's subjective complaints and medical findings.

Moser was 41 years of age at her alleged onset of disability date. Her applications were denied initially. (Tr. 1321-22.) Moser's claims were denied by an ALJ on November 27, 2019. (Tr. 439-48.) In her opinion, the ALJ noted that Moser had filed prior applications for benefits, which were denied by a different ALJ on November 13, 2013. (Tr. 439.) The ALJ stated that she was not reopening the prior ALJ's decision, and explained that the decision at issue would only consider Moser's eligibility for benefits since November 14, 2013. Id. On April 10, 2020, the Appeals Council denied Moser's claim for review. (Tr. 1-5.) Thus, the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.

Issue

Did the ALJ properly evaluate the medical evidence and Moser's subjective complaints in determining her residual functional capacity?

Moser first argues that the ALJ 'improperly evaluated raw medical findings.' (Doc. 18 at 3.) She next argues that the RFC 'is not supported by substantial evidence.' Id. at 5. Finally, Moser contends that the ALJ 'failed to conduct a proper pain evaluation.' Id. at 8.

Rule

The decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, which requires a more scrutinizing analysis than merely searching for evidence supporting the Commissioner's findings.

The decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed if it is supported [*5] by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971); Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but enough that a reasonable person would find it adequate to support the conclusion.

Analysis

The court found that the ALJ properly considered all relevant evidence, including Moser's medical records and subjective complaints, in determining her residual functional capacity. The ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the court noted that the ALJ's decision fell within the available zone of choice.

The ALJ first found that Moser meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2022. (Tr. 442.) She stated that Moser has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the established alleged onset date of November 14, 2013. Id. In addition, the ALJ concluded that Moser had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease; degenerative joint disease; status post reconstructive surgery of the right elbow; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and obesity. Id. The ALJ found that Moser did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments. (Tr. 443.)

Conclusion

The court affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that Moser was not disabled under the Social Security Act.

The ALJ's final decision reads as follows: Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits protectively filed on March 29, 2018, the claimant is not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act. Based on the application for supplemental security income protectively filed on April 12, 2018, the claimant is not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act.

Who won?

Kijakazi, as the court affirmed the decision of the ALJ, which denied Moser's claims for benefits.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Interior, Department of, v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association

American Immigr. Council v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Tacas-Juan v. Eddy

Singh v. Still

Mu Ju Li v. Mukasey