Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA TINA L. FARLEY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE I. Background Civil Action No. 5:12CV29 (STAMP)

On January 14, 2009, the plaintiff in this civil action filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act, claiming that she suffered from disability beginning November 1, 2008. She claimed disability as a result of diabetes, carpal tunnel syndrome, bulging discs in the neck, headaches, a herniated disc, trigger finger and thumb, tennis elbow on the right side, and a cataract in one eye. application for benefits was denied both initially and Her upon

reconsideration. The plaintiff then requested a hearing, which was granted and held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Charlie Paul Andrus. The ALJ affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's

application for benefits on the grounds that the plaintiff was not disabled as that term is defined by the Social Security Act. The

plaintiff then requested and was granted review by the Appeals

Council on the grounds that the ALJ incorrectly found that the plaintiff's date last insured was December 31, 2010, when the proper date last insured was December 31, 2011. 2012, the Appeals Council made findings about On January 9, the evidence

submitted with regard to the one-year period between the ALJ's improperly determined date last insured and the actual date last insured ("unadjudicated period"). It then adopted the ALJ's

adverse findings, modifying them to reflect the altered date last insured. This decision became the final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"). The plaintiff then filed this action against the Commissioner seeking review of the final decision of the Appeals Council. Both

parties filed motions for summary judgment, and both motions are now fully briefed. United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert reviewed the plaintiff's complaint, the motions by the parties and the administrative record, and issued a report and recommendation recommending that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted, that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, and that this matter be dismissed. Upon submitting his

report, Magistrate Judge Seibert informed the parties that if they objected to any portion of his proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, they must file written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report.

2

The plaintiff filed timely objections which object to all of the findings of Magistrate Judge Seibert. II. Applicable Law

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Download 44039.pdf

West Virginia Law