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
Denial of Social Security Benefits

Michael John Jacomet v. Andrew M. Saul

Published: Mar. 6, 2020 | Result Date: Aug. 19, 2019 | Filing Date: Jan. 12, 2018 |

Case number: 2:18-cv-0199 DB Summary Judgment –  Plaintiff

Judge

Deborah L. Barnes

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William M. Kuntz
(William M. Kuntz PLC)


Defendant

Daniel P. Talbert
(Social Security Administration)

Edward A. Olsen
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Facts

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

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant erred by not giving the appropriate amount of weight to the medical testimony provided nor to plaintiff's subjective testimony.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all allegations and contended suffered from severe impairment of seizure disorder, depression, anxiety, and history of thoracic and L1 compression fractures status post vertebroplasty at T6, T8, and L1, but was not disabled. Defense also contended that the ALJ gave the appropriate amount of weight to the medical testimony provided.

Result

The court entered judgment granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the court reversed defendant's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings on the grounds that defendant failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting plaintiff's testimony.


#133413

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

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