Reed-Goss v. Astrue
Filing
28
Order on Motion for Summary Judgment
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ADRIANNE REED-GOSS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 4:06-cv-0016-RRB
vs.
ORDER AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER’S
FINAL DECISION
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Defendant.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Before
the
Court
is
Plaintiff
Adrianne
Reed-Goss
(“Plaintiff”) with an appeal at Docket 18; wherein, she seeks
judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying her
applications for disability insurance benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. §§ 410-33, and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) disability benefits under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1381-83f,1
and “asks the Court for judgment in her favor that reverses the
final agency decision and remands this claim to the agency for
1
Docket 26 at 1-2.
ORDER AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER’S
FINAL DECISION - 1
4:06-CV-0016-RRB
payment of benefits.”2
Defendant opposes and argues the Court
should affirm the Commissioner’s final decision finding Plaintiff
not disabled under the Social Security Act.3
II.
The Court agrees.
FACTS
Because the facts are more than substantially briefed
within the applicable pleadings, they are not repeated herein
except as necessary.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court applies a deferential standard when reviewing
a decision denying disability benefits.
The Court’s role is
restricted to determining whether or not substantial evidence
supports the findings of fact and whether or not the proper legal
standards were used in weighing evidence and reaching a decision.4
Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence, but need
not rise to the level of a preponderance of evidence.5
Substantial
evidence means such evidence as a reasonable person might find
adequate to support a conclusion.6
2
Docket 18 at 21.
3
Docket 26 at 18.
4
See Taylor v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 1985).
5
See Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 183 (9th Cir. 1990).
6
See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.
1989).
ORDER AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER’S
FINAL DECISION - 2
4:06-CV-0016-RRB
IV.
DISCUSSION
Having
thoroughly
reviewed
the
relevant
pleadings,
administrative record, and supporting documents contained therein,
the Court concludes substantial evidence supports the findings of
fact of the Administrative Law Judge.7
Moreover, the Court further
concludes proper legal standards were used in both weighing the
evidence and in reaching a decision.
V.
CONCLUSION
As a result, the Commissioner’s final decision, finding
Plaintiff not disabled under the Social Security Act, is hereby
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2007.
S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Had Plaintiff’s physician(s) testified at the hearing
that Plaintiff was “unemployable,” the decision of the Court may
have been different.
ORDER AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER’S
FINAL DECISION - 3
4:06-CV-0016-RRB
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?