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
Supplemental Security Income

Mary R. v. Andrew M. Saul

Published: May 7, 2021 | Result Date: Mar. 30, 2021 | Filing Date: Dec. 17, 2019 |

Case number: ED CV 19-2431-SP Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Sheri Pym

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Cyrus Safa
(Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing)


Defendant

Marla K. Letellier
(Social Security Administration)


Facts

Plaintiff Mary R. sought judicial review of a final decision by Administrative Law Judge who denied Plaintiff's application for Disability and Supplemental Social Security Income. Plaintiff previously applied for benefits due to bilateral carpal tunnel in both hands, hyperthyroidism, high blood pressure, and depression, but the ALJ determined Plaintiff was not disabled. Plaintiff then asserted causes of action for violations of Title XVI of the Social Security Act and challenged the ALJ's decision.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended Defendant ALJ erred when it improperly discounted the opinion of a state agency physician. Plaintiff further contended the ALJ improperly determined that plaintiff did not suffer from a severe mental impairment at step two. Specifically, Plaintiff contended at step two, the ALJ improperly determined that plaintiff's medical determinable mental impairment of depression was not severe.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions and moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff's medical determinable mental impairment of depression was not severe, since it did not cause more than minimal limitations in plaintiff's ability to perform basic mental work activities. Thus Defendant contended Plaintiff was not disabled.

Result

The court ruled in favor of Defendant and affirmed the ALJ's decision after it concluded the ALJ properly discounted the opinion of the state agency physician and properly determined that plaintiff did not suffer from a severe mental impairment.


#137002

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

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