Source: http://ut.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190610_0000482.DUT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-13 19:08:37
Document Index: 479141963

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

FindACase™ | Tweedle v. Berryhill
TINA M. TWEEDLE, Plaintiff,
Before the court is Tina M. Tweedle's (“Plaintiff's”) appeal of the Commissioner's final decision determining that Plaintiff was not entitled to 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 id. §§ 1381-1383f. The court held oral arguments on May 15, 2019.
Plaintiff alleges disability due to various physical impairments. In April 2015, Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI, alleging disability beginning on April 30, 2013.[1] Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration.[2] On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”),[3] and that hearing was held on July 14, 2017.[4] On December 12, 2017, the ALJ issued a written decision denying Plaintiff's claim for DIB and SSI.[5] On July 7, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review,[6] 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 August 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed her complaint in this case.[7] The Commissioner filed her answer and the administrative record on October 18, 2018.[8] On October 23, 2018, both parties consented to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in the case, including entry of final judgment, with appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[9] Consequently, this case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Kohler pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[10] See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.
Plaintiff filed her opening brief on January 24, 2019.[11] The Commissioner filed her answer brief on February 21, 2019.[12]
The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's case through step four, making the following findings:
1. Plaintiff &ldquo;meets the insured status requirements&rdquo; and &ldquo;has not engaged in substantial gainful activity.[13]” In other ...