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, )

Download PDF
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."

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?