Saul

Penny Baten v. Saul

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 19, 20215:20-cv-07336California4,972 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 A.P.B., Case No. 20-cv-07336-SVK

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ANDREW M. SAUL, Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 21 Defendant.

Plaintiff appeals from the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which awarded her disability benefits for the period beginning May 27, 2017 but denied benefits for the period January 1, 2015 to May 26, 2017. The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt. 9, 17. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 20) and GRANTS Defendant Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 21). I. BACKGROUND In February 2015, Plaintiff filed applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income (“SSI”). See Dkt. 16 (Administrative Record (“AR”)) 18 454, 455. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a…

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.