Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

A.S.G v. Berryhill

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 13, 2017

A.S.G., by and through her Guardian ad Litem April Zachry, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [1]Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         On July 21, 2016, April Zachry (“plaintiff's mother”), as the Guardian Ad Litem for minor child A.S.G. (“plaintiff”), filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of plaintiff's application for benefits. The parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, respectively (“Plaintiff's Motion”) and (“Defendant's Motion”). The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7-15; July 29, 2016 Case Management Order ¶ 5.

         Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The findings of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) are supported by substantial evidence and are free from material error.

         11. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

         On March 23, 2012, plaintiff's mother, on behalf of plaintiff, filed an application for Supplemental Security Income alleging disability beginning on November 16, 2011, due to epilepsy and seizures. (Administrative Record (“AR”)

         12, 154, 185). The ALJ examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) and plaintiff's mother on January 30, 2014. (AR 35-68).

         On March 14, 2014, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 12-26). Specifically, the ALJ found: (1) plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 23, 2012, the application date (AR 15); (2) plaintiff suffers from the following severe impairments: seizures and migraine headaches (AR 15); (3) plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals a listed impairment (AR 15); (3) plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that functionally equals the severity of the listings[2]

         (AR 15); and (4) plaintiff's statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of subjective symptoms were not entirely credible (AR 17).

         On November 24, 2015, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review. (AR 5).

         III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Childhood Disability Claims - Sequential Evaluation Process

         To qualify for childhood disability benefits an “individual under the age of 18” (i.e., “child” or “claimant”) must establish that he or she has “a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and severe functional limitations, and which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i); 20 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.