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
Disability Insurance Benefits

Jacqueline Renee Turner v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Published: Aug. 14, 2020 | Result Date: Jun. 17, 2020 | Filing Date: Mar. 27, 2019 |

Case number: 19-cv-01588-RMI Summary Judgment –  Plaintiff

Judge

Robert M. Illman

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Meghan O. Lambert
(Law Office of Meghan O. Lambert)


Defendant

Sara Winslow
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)

Tina L. Naicker
(Social Security Administration)


Facts

Plaintiff Jacqueline Renee Turner sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security who denied Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged she suffered from depression, panic disorders, a ruptured disc in her lumbar spine, and suicidal ideation. Plaintiff contended Defendant violated Title II and XVI of the Social Security Act when Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income was denied based on Plaintiff's mental and physical impairments. Plaintiff contended she suffered from depression since early childhood when her father and brother passed away and when she became subjected to verbal and physical abuse. Plaintiff contended Defendant erred when it determined Plaintiff's panic disorders were not medically determinable since Plaintiff was only diagnosed by a social worker. Plaintiff additionally contended Defendant failed to provide legal sufficient reasons as to why it rejected the work preclusive limitations that both testifying physicians' opined about and when it failed to consider Plaintiff's work history in evaluating Plaintiff's credibility.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions and contended there was substantial evidence presented that supported Defendant's conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled. Defendant additionally contended Plaintiff was not disabled because Plaintiff did not have any severe impairments individually or collectively that prohibited Plaintiff from work.

Result

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted after the court determined that Defendant erred when it concluded panic disorders were not medically determinable.


#135194

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

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