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

Merary A.S. v. Andrew M. Saul

Published: Nov. 27, 2020 | Result Date: Jul. 15, 2020 | Filing Date: Sep. 18, 2019 |

Case number: CV 19-8100-PLA Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Paul L. Abrams

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Patricia L. McCabe
(Law Office of Patricia L. McCabe)

Kristin E. Berk
(Law Office of Patricia L. McCabe)


Defendant

Jean M. Turk
(Social Security Administration)


Facts

Plaintiff Merary A. S. sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security who denied plaintiff's application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended defendant erred when it determined Plaintiff was not disabled. Plaintiff contended that Plaintiff suffered from the severe impairments of fibromyalgia; bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; spondylosis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine; and chronic traumatic disorder of the cervical spine. Plaintiff contended Defendant erred when it rejected and failed to consider with significance, the opinion of Plaintiffs' treating physicians. Plaintiff contended Defendant improperly considered and gave more weight to the opinion of the orthopedic examiner. Plaintiff additionally contended Defendant erred when it improperly considered the relevant medical evidence of the record when it assessed Plaintiff's Residual functioning capacity. Lastly Plaintiff contended defendant erred when it improperly considered Plaintiff's subjective testimony.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions and contended Defendant properly determined that Plaintiff was not disabled because Plaintiff only suffered from mild, not major impairments that did not limit Plaintiff's daily activities. Defendant further contended Plaintiff could have worked as an office helper, assembler, or a mail sorter.

Result

The court ruled in favor of Defendant and granted Defendant's notion for summary judgment after it concluded Defendant properly considered the medical evidence of Plaintiff's alleged impairments.


#135362

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

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