(SS) Van Groningen v. Commissioner of Social Security

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 23, 20241:21-cv-01377California5,699 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SHELLY VITALI VAN GRONINGEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01377-CDB (SS) o/b/o M.A.V., 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Plaintiff, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 10 AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER v. 11 (Docs. 21, 25)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

12 SECURITY,

13 Defendant.

14 15 Shelly Vitali Van Groningen on behalf of her minor son M.A.V. (“Plaintiff”) seeks 16 judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or 17 “Defendant”) denying Plaintiff’s application for Title XVI Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) 18 benefits. The matter is before the Court on the certified administrative record (“AR”). (Doc. 14). 19 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on July 1, 2022 (Doc. 21), and the Commissioner 20 filed a responsive brief on September 14, 2022. (Doc. 25).1 For the reasons set forth below, the 21 Court denies Plaintiff’s motion and affirms the Commissioner. 22 I. Background2 23 On January 15,…

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.