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.

Hudgins v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee

September 5, 2017

MIA FAYE HUDGINS, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,[1] Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          THOMAS A. VARLAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This civil case is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support [Docs. 14, 16] and defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support [Docs. 17, 18]. Mia Faye Hudgins (“plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which is the final decision of defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”).

         This action was instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision denying plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), as provided by the Social Security Act (the “Act”).

         The Commissioner determined that plaintiff is not disabled under the Act. Because the Commissioner's determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff's motion [Doc. 14] will be DENIED, the Commissioner's motion [Doc. 17] will be GRANTED, and the Commissioner's decision will be AFFIRMED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         On September 23, 2014, plaintiff protectively filed for DIB and SSI under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., based on a ten percent left arm impairment, nerve damage, anxiety attacks, back injury, and a small brain tumor[2] [Tr. 10, 170-179, 229].[3] Plaintiff's claim was denied both initially and after reconsideration [Tr. 79-80, 107-114, 122-127]. On May 3, 2016, plaintiff appeared and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Kristie Luffman-Minor [Tr. 31-57]. On May 13, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff was “not disabled, ” as defined in the applicable sections of the Act, because she was capable of performing past relevant work and capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy [Tr. 12-24]. On July 13, 2016, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review [Tr. 1-3]. Thus, plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies, and the ALJ's decision stands as the Commissioner's final decision subject to judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         B. Relevant Facts

         1. Plaintiff's Age, Education, and Past Work Experience

         Plaintiff is currently a fifty-one-year-old individual who performed past relevant work as a painter, cleaner, security guard, case aide, and fast food worker [Tr. 48-51, 209]. At the time of her amended alleged onset date of January 1, 2014, Plaintiff was forty-eight years old [Tr. 170, 174, 273].

         2. Plaintiff's Testimony and Medical History

         The parties and the ALJ have summarized and discussed the medical and testimonial evidence of the administrative record. Accordingly, the Court will discuss those matters as relevant to the analysis of the parties' arguments.

         3. 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.