This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Government
Social Security Administration
Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

Isis Avina v. Andrew M. Saul

Published: Mar. 6, 2020 | Result Date: Aug. 2, 2019 |

Case number: 18-cv-01728-W-MSB Summary Judgment –  Plaintiff

Judge

Michael S. Berg

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Cyrus Safa
(Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing)


Defendant

Katherine L. Parker
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)

Sharon Lahey
(Social Security Administration)


Facts

Plaintiff Isis Avina applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income under the social security act. Avina's application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Avina then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge, who determined she was not disabled. Avina filed for judicial review and moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-motioned for summary judgment.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant improperly rejected plaintiff's testimony regarding her symptoms, pain, and level of limitations and additionally claimed that defendant did so without legally valid reasons.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all allegations and contended that Avina suffered from multilevel degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, obesity, and major depressive disorder, and therefore, was not disabled.

Result

The court entered judgment granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court then reversed defendant's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings on the grounds that defendant's bases for rejecting plaintiff's testimony was legally insufficient.


#133398

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390