Flamme

Flamme v. Saul

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 21, 20213:20-cv-01050California6,190 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

° UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 ul SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA || JULIE FLAMME, Case No.: 3:20-CV-01050-WVG Plaintiff, DIRECT ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S is MOTION FOR SUMMARY ANDREW SAUL JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT’S , CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY ' Commissioner of Social Security, JUDGMENT Defendant 19 111. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Julie Flamme’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summa Judgment and Commissioner of Social Security Andrew Saul’s (“Defendant” o °° “Commissioner’”) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 11-1, 12. ** |) Plaintiff alleges she suffers from severe disabilities that preclude her from workin °° and filed for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (“SSA”) The Commissioner denied Plaintiff's application for such benefits. (AR 864. Plaintiff sought administrative relief from the Commissioner’s decision but…

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.