Naillieux v. SSA

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Acting Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 16 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 1/31/2017. (TDA) cc: COR

Download PDF
Case: 7:16-cv-00193-JMH Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/31/17 Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#: 529 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION at PIKEVILLE LORENA NAILLIEUX, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,1 Civil Case No. 16-cv-193-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Defendant. *** This matter is before the Court upon the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 16]. has filed neither Commissioner’s a motion response nor provided by the Court. her objecting own motion to Acting Plaintiff the within the Acting time For the reasons stated below, the Acting Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted. As an initial matter, the Court accepts and adopts the procedural history and statement of the facts set forth by the Acting Commissioner in the absence of any objection from Plaintiff and because they reflect the materials contained in the administrative transcript of this matter. [See DE 16 at 1- 5.] Next, the Court agrees with the Acting Commissioner that the Social 1 Security Administration did not violate the reopening The caption of this matter is amended to reflect that Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing Carolyn W. Colvin in that role. Case: 7:16-cv-00193-JMH Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/31/17 Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#: 530 regulations because they are irrelevant to the situation at bar in this matter as explained in the Acting Commissioner’s memorandum of law and as announced by this Court in Perkins v. Colvin, 7:16-cv-35-JMH [DE 55 at 8]. Further, there is no merit to Plaintiff’s claim that her due process rights were violated by means of the redetermination process as this Court has explained in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 16, 2016 matter of Perkins v. Colvin, 7:16-cv-35-JMH [DE 55 at 7-8], and incorporates and adopts that reasoning in this matter. Finally, the Court’s review of the Acting Commissioner’s decision concerning disability upon reconsideration is limited to an inquiry into whether or not the findings of the Acting Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence, and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401 (1971). Moreover, this Court’s review is limited “to the particular points that [the claimant] appears to raise in [his] brief on appeal.” Hollon v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 447 F.3d 477, 491 (6th Cir. 2006). In the absence of a brief on appeal from Plaintiff with respect to the decision of the Acting Commissioner, the Court sees no reason to make further inquiry into the Acting Commissioner’s findings. Nevertheless, the Court pursuant to the statutory mandate has reviewed the entire record. Although Plaintiff evidence has some severe impairments, 2 substantial Case: 7:16-cv-00193-JMH Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/31/17 Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#: 531 supports precluded the Acting from Commissioner’s performing exists in the economy. decision substantial that gainful she activity is not which Thus, the Court will affirm the decision of the Acting Commissioner with respect to the decision to deny benefits upon redetermination. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Acting Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 16] is GRANTED. This the 31st day of January, 2017. 3

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?