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

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