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

Eric Neal Johnson v. Andrew M. Saul

Published: Mar. 19, 2021 | Result Date: Feb. 25, 2021 | Filing Date: Nov. 20, 2019 |

Case number: 1:19-cv-1647 JLT Summary Judgment –  Plaintiff

Judge

Jennifer L. Thurston

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Petitioner

Jonathan O. Pena-Mancinas
(Pena & Bromberg PC)


Respondent

Benjamin E. Hall
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)

Michael K. Marriott
(Social Security Administration)

S. Wyeth McAdam


Facts

Plaintiff Eric Neal Johnson sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended he became disabled in 2015, due to deep vascular thrombosis in his right leg, advanced degenerative joint disease in his left knee, hypercoagulable state of Lupus anticoagulant, hypertension, dizziness, and weakness. Additionally, Plaintiff contended that he had experienced knee issues since 1985, when he was in a car accident that required surgery on his left knee. Plaintiff further contended that he reported he felt physically weaker from taking blood thinners and was unable to stand for long periods of time. Thus, Plaintiff contended Defendant failed to properly consider Plaintiff's subjective statements.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions, and contended Plaintiff's rejected disability application was based on substantial evidence such as there was no durational medical explanation or findings that supported Plaintiff's alleged limitations.

Result

The court ruled in Plaintiff's favor after it determined Defendant erred when it evaluated Plaintiff's medical record and subjective complaints.


#136776

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

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