Hill v. Colvin

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION - Based on the foregoing analysis, the court finds that the Commissioner's final decision rendered on May 3, 2013 denying benefits for the period June 1, 2012 through the date of the decision, is supported by substantial evide nce and that the proper legal standards were applied in evaluating the evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket no. 8) is denied; the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Docket no. 13) is granted; and the final decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 03/16/2015. (dvanm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

STEVEN LEON HILL,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. I:14cvl261 (JFA)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docket nos. 8,

13).' Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff seeks judicial review ofthe final decision of
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
("Commissioner"), finding that plaintiff was no longer disabled and therefore not entitled to
continued Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act.

Plaintiff was originally found to bedisabled on December 21, 2009.2 (AR 13,54). This
determination was based on a finding that the plaintiffs impairments as of May 15,2009 met or
medically equaled the severity of Listing 6.02B, which affords the claimant a presumption of
disability for twelve months following kidney transplantation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P,

App. 1. After twelve months, Listing 6.02B calls for a residual impairment evaluation pursuant
to Listing 6.00E2, considering the following factors: occurrence of rejection episodes; side
The Administrative Record ("AR") in this case has been filed under seal, pursuant to Local Civil Rules 5 and 7(C).
(Docket no. 5). In accordance with these rules, this opinion excludes any personal identifiers such as plaintiffs
social security number and date of birth (except for the year of birth) and the discussion of plaintiffs medical
information is limited to the extent necessary to analyze the case.

2As the most recent favorable medical decision finding that the plaintiff was disabled, this decision is referred to as
the "comparison point decision."