Source: http://ut.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190930_0000733.DUT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 22:14:36
Document Index: 519859538

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 401', '§ 1381', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Lonny S. v. Saul
Lonny S. v. Saul
LONNY S., Plaintiff,
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to have Chief United States Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, entry of final judgment, and all post-judgment proceedings.[2] Plaintiff Lonny S.’s (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434, and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. After careful review of the administrative record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant law, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff alleges disability due to various physical and mental impairments. In August 2014, respectively, Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI, alleging disability beginning in February 2014.[3] These claims were denied initially on December 31, 2014, and upon reconsideration on May 15, 2015.[4] Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing.[5] Plaintiff appeared and testified at a hearing held on March 3, 2017, and again at a supplemental hearing on August 29, 2017.[6] On September 14, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a written decision denying Plaintiff’s claims for DIB and SSI.[7] On August 1, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, [8] making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision for purposes of judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed his complaint in this case.[9] On November 27, 2018, the Commissioner filed an answer and a copy of the administrative record.[10] Plaintiff filed his opening brief on April 2, 2019.[11] The Commissioner filed an answer brief on April 29, 2019.[12] Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.
Williams, 844 F.2d at 750-51 (quotations and citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R.§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(ii).
On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the ALJ: (1) failed to find Plaintiff’s posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) to be a medically determinable impairment, and (2) failed to accept Dr. Kendrick’s testimony regarding a possible need for work breaks, or alternatively failed to offer an explanation for not accepting this testimony. For the reasons that follow, the court finds Plaintiff has failed to provide the court grounds on which to overturn the decision of the Commissioner. ...