PRENTICE v. ASTRUE

Filing 27

ORDER - denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration ; The Administrative Law Judge's decision finding that there was no medical evidence supporting the existence of a medically determinable impairment before March 31, 1983, is supported by sub stantial evidence in the record. Ms. Prentice has not produced new evidence or arguments that would allow the Court to alter its decision. For the same reasons explained in more detail in the Entry on Judicial Review, Ms. Prentice's Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/10/2014. Copy Mailed. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
KATHRYN SUE ROBERTSON PRENTICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:12-cv-01335-TWP-MJD
)
)
)
)

ENTRY DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This matter is before the Court on the request of Plaintiff Kathryn Prentice (“Ms.
Prentice”) seeking reconsideration of the Court’s affirmation of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration’s final decision denying her disability benefits, filed February 3, 2014.
On February 18, 2014, the Commissioner filed its Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration (Dkt. 26), asserting that Ms. Prentice’s Motion raises the same arguments
made in her original claim and that she still does not show that she had any medically
determinable impairment prior to her last date insured of March 31, 1983.

The Court is

sympathetic to Ms. Prentice’s medical conditions, but the law does not allow the Court to reverse
the Commissioner’s final decision; therefore, the Motion (Dkt. 25) must be DENIED.
As set forth in the Court’s Entry on Judicial Review (Dkt. 23), Ms. Prentice suffers from
interstitial cystitis that was misdiagnosed and misunderstood until the mid-1980s or later. She
also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Ms. Prentice’s last date insured was March 31,
1983. The focus of the Administrative Law Judge and the Court must be on whether there is
acceptable objective medical evidence that Ms. Prentice had a medically determinable
impairment prior to March 31, 1983. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision finding that

there was no medical evidence supporting the existence of a medically determinable impairment
before March 31, 1983, is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Ms. Prentice has not
produced new evidence or arguments that would allow the Court to alter its decision. For the
same reasons explained in more detail in the Entry on Judicial Review, Ms. Prentice’s Motion
for reconsideration (Dkt. 25) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
06/10/2014
Date: _________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

DISTRIBUTION:
Kathryn Sue Robertson Prentice
722 Milton Avenue, Apt. 1
Anderson, Indiana 46012
Thomas E. Kieper
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
[e-mail]

2