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.

Montes v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division

January 22, 2018

ROSA MARIA MONTES, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ROBERT F. CASTANEDA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This is a civil action seeking judicial review of an administrative decision. Jurisdiction is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), denying her claim for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act. Both parties having consented to trial on the merits before a United States Magistrate Judge, the case was transferred to this Court for trial and entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Appendix C to the Local Court Rules of the Western District of Texas. For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed her application for DIB, alleging disability due to impairments that became disabling on August 1, 2013. (R:200)[1] Plaintiffs alleged onset date was later determined to be June 1, 2013. (R:94, 216) The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. (R: 121 -146) Pursuant to Plaintiff s request, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held a hearing to review Plaintiffs application de novo on March 23, 2016, at which both Plaintiff and a vocational expert (" VE") testified. (R:91 -120) The ALJ issued her decision on May 19, 2016, denying benefits. (R:55-64) Plaintiffs request for review was denied by the Appeals Council on July 7, 2017. (R:l-5)

         ISSUES

         Plaintiff presents the following issues for review:

1. Whether the ALJ erred in her evaluation of the treating physician's opinion.
2. Whether the ALJ failed to develop the record.
3. Whether the ALJ erred by failing to obtain a medical advisor's opinion pursuant to SSR 83-20.
4. Whether the ALJ erred by not relying on any physician's opinion in arriving at her RFC determination.
5. Whether the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy is supported by substantial evidence.

(Doc. 14:2-10)

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         This Court's review is limited to a determination of whether the Commissioner's final decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in evaluating the evidence. See Martinez v. Chater,64 F.3d 172, 173 (5th Cir. 1995); Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1120 (1995). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but can be less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Ripley v. Chater,67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). A finding of no substantial evidence will be made only where there is a "conspicuous absence of credible choices" or "no contrary medical evidence." Abshire v. Bowen,848 F.2d 638, 640 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Hames v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1983). In reviewing the ...


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.