(SS) Vance v. Commissioner of Social Security

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 25, 20221:21-cv-00428California4,690 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Introduction

12 Plaintiff Josefina Vance (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 13 Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her application for 14 supplemental security income pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The matter is before 15 the Court on the parties’ briefs which were submitted without oral argument to the United States 16 Magistrate Judge. See Docs. 20, 21, 22. After reviewing the record the Court finds that substantial 17 evidence and applicable law do not support the ALJ’s decision. Plaintiff’s appeal is therefore 18 granted.

II. Factual and Procedural Background2

20 On November 1, 2017 Plaintiff applied for supplemental security income alleging disability 21 as of December 1, 2008. The Commissioner denied the application initially on May 14, 2018, and 22 on reconsideration on July 25, 2018. AR 121–33, 134–46. Plaintiff requested a hearing which was 23 held before an Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) on July 20, 2020. AR 75–101. On 24 September 1, 2020 the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s application. AR 13–32. The

1 The parties consented to the…

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.