Windsor v. Astrue

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Dorothy Windsor and 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Michael J. Astrue. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 12/21/2010. (tche)

IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division
DOROTHY WINDSOR

)

Plaintiff,

No. l : 1 0 - c v - 6 3 5 ( A J T / T C B )
M I C H A E L J. A S T R U E ,

Commissioner, Social Security
Administration Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Dorothy Windsor ("plaintiff") seeks judicial

review of the final decision o f the defendant. Commissioner o f the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner" or "defendant") denying p l a i n t i f f s claim for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II o f the Social Security Act ("SSA" or "the Act"),
42 U . S . C . §§ 4 0 1 - 4 3 3 . T h e r e c o r d h a s b e e n filed a n d t h e c a s e is n o w b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on

cross-motions for summary judgment (Doc. No. 12 and 14). The dispositive issue is
whether the C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

In her Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff contends that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and should therefore be reversed

because: (1) the determinations of the administrative law judge ("ALJ") fail to specify a particular degree of hand usage impairment to support his determination that the plaintiff
has residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work; (2) the ALJ and the

Appeals Council failed to give appropriate weight to the treating physician's opinion and
applied an incorrect legal standard; and (3) the A I J determined that the Plaintiff was "not