Hebert v. Astrue
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER adopting 15 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge... that the decision of Commissioner be, and is hereby, affirmed. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/15/2013) (krg)
.-~~~~~~~~~~---··-··~
:
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
. ~ORTBERN DISTRICfOFTEXAS
· ~'/it~~r;~~::, FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA
FORT WORTH DIVISION
SUSAN HEBERT,
..------==:;__OCT J 5 2013
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
vs.
NO. 4:12-CV-258-A
§
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Before the court for decision is the appeal of plaintiff,
Susan Hebert, from the decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration ("Commissioner"), denying plaintiff
disability benefits under the Social Security Act ("Act") . 1
The
court has concluded that the decision of Commissioner should be
affirmed.
In June 2010, Plaintiff filed concurrent applications for a
Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits and for
Supplemental Security Income.
A hearing was held by an
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on petitioner's applications in
two sessions, commencing in April 2011 and continuing in June
2011.
The ALJ rendered a decision in July 2011 that (1) based on
1
Plaintiff applied for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits protectively under
§§ 216(i) and 223(d) of the Act and for Supplemental Security Income protectively under
§ 1614(a)(3)(A) ofthe Act.
plaintiff's application for a Period of Disability and Disability
Insurance Benefits protectively filed on June 16, 2010, plaintiff
is not disabled under§§ 216(i) and 223(d) of the Act, and (2)
based on plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income
protectively filed on June 16, 2010, plaintiff is not disabled
under§ 1614(a) (3) (A) of the Act.
In February 2012, the Appeals
Council affirmed the ALJ's decision, causing the ALJ's decision
to be the final decision of Commissioner.
In April 2012 plaintiff filed a complaint initiating the
above-captioned action complaining of Commissioner's decision.
Consistent with the usual practices of the undersigned, the case
was referred to the Magistrate Judge for the making of proposed
findings and conclusions and a recommendation for disposition.
The Magistrate Judge ordered that this proceeding be treated
as an appeal from Commissioner's decision, and that the parties
proceed accordingly.
Thereafter, plaintiff filed her appeal in
the form of a brief, Commissioner responded with a brief, and
plaintiff filed her reply to Commissioner's brief.
On September
3, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings and
conclusions and his recommendation that Commissioner's decision
be affirmed.
The Magistrate Judge gave the parties until September 13,
2013, to serve and file written objections to his proposed
2
findings and conclusions and his recommendation.
Plaintiff
timely filed her objections, to which Commissioner responded.
After having made a review of the record, the filings of the
parties, and the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and
conclusions and his recommendation, the court has determined to
adopt the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge and his recommendation that the decision of Commissioner be
affirmed.
Accordingly,
The court ORDERS that the decision of Commissioner be, and
is hereby, affirmed.
SIGNED
October~ 2013.
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?