Minichino v. Astrue

Minichino v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Alissa Minichino
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	3:2012cv00625
Filed:	April 4, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Scranton Office
County:	York
Presiding Judge:	GS
Presiding Judge:	Richard P. Conaboy
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
June 28, 2013	Filing 13 MEMORANDUM This case exemplifies the difficult nature of Social Security proceedings. Recognizing the challenges faced by the Social Security Administration (particularly the ALJ where a hearing has been conducted) and the complex legal framework wi thin which claims are analyzed, we must also keep in mind the reasons for the detailed obligations governing SSA decisions-real people with real problems deserve careful scrutiny of their claims. Plaintiff is clearly a claimant with multiple physica l problems, some psychological problems, and substance dependence issues. Her records indicate some long-term difficulties but also many short-term exacerbations of long-term problems and multiple accident/incident related problems. The number of t reating physicians, overlapping visits and reports, and inferences which can be derived from some reports portray a picture of a pleasant, though sometimes difficult patient. (See, e.g., R. 575, 879, 1090.) The ALJs analysis of Plaintiffs claim and complex record is in most respects thorough and his findings well-supported. However, our consideration of the intricate requirements related to the step five determination, particularly as they apply to VE testimony, prevent affirmance.Because we have found the VEs testimony on each of the suggested positions unreliable, because the ALJ relied on the VEs testimony to determine at step five that Plaintiff could make an adjustment to other work and was not disabled (R. 32-33), and because we fi nd no other evidence in the record to support the ALJs decision at step five, the ALJs conclusion that Plaintiff in not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, Plaintiffs appeal of the Commissioners denial of benefits (Doc. 1) is granted, and the case is remanded for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum. An appropriate Order is entered simultaneously with this Memorandum. (See Memorandum)Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 6/28/13. (cc)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 28, 2013

Filing 13 MEMORANDUM This case exemplifies the difficult nature of Social Security proceedings. Recognizing the challenges faced by the Social Security Administration (particularly the ALJ where a hearing has been conducted) and the complex legal framework wi thin which claims are analyzed, we must also keep in mind the reasons for the detailed obligations governing SSA decisions-real people with real problems deserve careful scrutiny of their claims. Plaintiff is clearly a claimant with multiple physica l problems, some psychological problems, and substance dependence issues. Her records indicate some long-term difficulties but also many short-term exacerbations of long-term problems and multiple accident/incident related problems. The number of t reating physicians, overlapping visits and reports, and inferences which can be derived from some reports portray a picture of a pleasant, though sometimes difficult patient. (See, e.g., R. 575, 879, 1090.) The ALJs analysis of Plaintiffs claim and complex record is in most respects thorough and his findings well-supported. However, our consideration of the intricate requirements related to the step five determination, particularly as they apply to VE testimony, prevent affirmance.Because we have found the VEs testimony on each of the suggested positions unreliable, because the ALJ relied on the VEs testimony to determine at step five that Plaintiff could make an adjustment to other work and was not disabled (R. 32-33), and because we fi nd no other evidence in the record to support the ALJs decision at step five, the ALJs conclusion that Plaintiff in not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, Plaintiffs appeal of the Commissioners denial of benefits (Doc. 1) is granted, and the case is remanded for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum. An appropriate Order is entered simultaneously with this Memorandum. (See Memorandum)Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 6/28/13. (cc)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Minichino v. Astrue
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Alissa Minichino
Represented By:	Victoria P. Edwards
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?