Mirto

Mirto v. Kijakazi

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 6, 20245:23-cv-03198California7,689 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 J.M., Case No. 23-cv-03198-SVK

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

9 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 18 11 Defendants.

12 Plaintiff appeals from the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which 13 denied his application for supplemental security income. The Parties have consented to the 14 jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt. 8, 10. For the reasons discussed below, the Court 15 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 12), DENIES Defendant 16 Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 18), and REMANDS this case for 17 further proceedings. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On or about March 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed an application for Title XVI Supplemental Security Income. See Dkt. 11 (Administrative Record (“AR”)) 186-193. The claim was denied 20 initially on August 3, 2021 (AR 93-97) and denied on reconsideration on October 15, 2021 21 (AR 105-110). On…

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.