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 Supplemental Security Income

Jesse P. Solomon v. Kilolo Kijakazi

Published: Aug. 26, 2022 | Result Date: Jul. 5, 2022 | Filing Date: Jun. 4, 2021 |

Case number: 2:21-cv-04620-SP Bench Decision –  Petition Denied

Judge

Sheri Pym

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James B. Lewis
(Law Office of James B. Lewis)


Defendant

Stacy E. Wiesbrock
(Social Security Administration)


Facts

Jessie S. was 21 years old when he allegedly experienced an onset disability. He had no past relevant work experience. On July 10, 2018, he filed an application for supplemental security income alleging disability since July 1, 2017 but was denied initially and on reconsideration. Later, represented by counsel, he appeared and testified at a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ also heard testimony from a vocational expert, Rebecca Williams and Dr. Edward Ritvo, a psychiatrist who examined Jessie and review his medical records. On September 25, 2020, the ALJ denied his claim, finding that Jessie had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the date of the application; that Jessie suffered from major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and polysubstance abuse; and that Jessie's impairments did not meet or medically equally the impairments. The ALJ found Dr. Ritvo's opinions to be not entirely persuasive because it was not supported by medical evidence in the records, including that it was at odds with his own clinical observations. Overall, the ALJ concluded that Jessie's substance use disorder was a contributing factor material to the disability determination because he would not be disabled if he stopped his substance abuse. The ALJ then concluded that Jessie did not suffer from a disability as defined by the Social Security Act. Jessie filed a review of that decision which the Appeals Council denied and the ALJ's decision stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff challenged the ALJ's determination that he was not disabled because if he stopped the substance use, he would be able to perform simple tasks. Specifically, plaintiff argued that the ALJ improperly evaluated Dr. Ritvo's findings of marked limitations.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

The court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny the disability insurance benefits.


#139301

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

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