Astrue

MUI SI VOONG v. Astrue

Good Law
641 F. Supp. 2d 996·2009 WL 2230809·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64462
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2009CIV S-08-0375 GGHCalifornia4,464 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollows, J.

ORDER

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”). For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part, the Commissioner’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the plaintiff.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was born on September 2, 1949. (Tr. at 161). She applied for disability benefits on April 13, 2000. (Tr. at 161). Plaintiff alleged she was unable to work due to chronic arthritis, dizziness, sleeplessness, lung problems, mental disorder and a poor memory. (Tr. at 167.)

In a decision dated October 3, 2001, ALJ Mark C. Ramsey determined plaintiff was not disabled. On September 18, 2006, Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds reversed the ALJ’s decision and remanded for a new hearing. (Tr. at 353-361.) Judge Moulds found that remand was required because the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff was capable of doing simple, medium work was not supported by substantial evidence. (Tr. at 356.) In its remand order directing the ALJ to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.