Hancock

Hancock v. Saul

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 12, 20203:19-cv-05757California9,521 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JENNIFER H.,1 Case No. 19-cv-05757-TSH

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

9 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10 ANDREW SAUL, Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 16 11 Defendant.

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Jennifer H. brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial 15 review of a final decision of Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, denying 16 her claim for disability benefits. Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for 17 summary judgment. ECF Nos. 14 (Pl.’s Mot.), 16 (Def.’s Mot.). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16- 18 5, the motions have been submitted without oral argument. Having reviewed the parties’ 19 positions, the Administrative Record (“AR”), and relevant legal authority, the Court hereby 20 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion and GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion for the following reasons. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 A. Age, Education and Work…

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.