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