District Court, E.D. Kentucky — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Gray v. Astrue
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011-02-01 · cited 1×
The case involves a plaintiff's action for judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of her Disability Insurance Benefits application. The court examined whether the ALJ properly weighed medical evidence, including updated reports from treating physicians Dr. Douglas and Dr. Dubai showing a 30 percent impairment rating due to chronic regional pain syndrome spreading from the upper extremity, in contrast to an earlier 9 percent rating. The ALJ had relied on an older state agency assessment that did not account for this later evidence. The court remanded the case for further consideration of the impairment ratings and any new evidence under SSR 06-03p.
healthcarefederal power
Millen v. Astrue
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011-01-24
The case Millen v. Astrue involved a plaintiff's challenge to the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits by the Social Security Administration. The court reviewed the administrative decision under the five-step sequential evaluation process for determining disability and found that the ALJ had accepted opinions from state agency psychologists indicating limitations in pace but failed to include a restriction to slow-paced work in the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert at step five. Relying on Sixth Circuit precedent in Ealy v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court concluded that this omission meant the vocational expert's testimony did not constitute substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's burden at step five, leading to a remand for further proceedings. Additional new evidence submitted by the plaintiff was also to be considered on remand.
federal powerhealthcareprocedure
Hollins v. Astrue
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011-01-24 · cited 2×
D.J. Hollins brought this action seeking judicial review of an unfavorable administrative decision denying his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The court applied the five-step sequential evaluation process for determining disability and reviewed the ALJ's assessment of residual functional capacity and the weight given to medical opinions. It found that the ALJ improperly relied on opinions from non-examining reviewers who had not reviewed a complete record, including a later treating physician assessment and subsequent treatment records, which prevented those opinions from outweighing the treating source under applicable rules. The court therefore reversed the administrative decision and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further consideration, also noting that the claimant's impairments had not been fairly evaluated in combination.
healthcarefederal powerprocedure
Abrams v. Astrue
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2009-06-30 · cited 2×
The case involved a plaintiff seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The district court applied the five-step sequential evaluation process to assess disability, reviewing the administrative law judge's findings on severe impairments, residual functional capacity, medical opinions from treating and examining physicians, IQ testing, pain allegations, and functional illiteracy. The court determined that the ALJ's conclusion that the plaintiff was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including school records and physician assessments, and that any alleged errors did not warrant remand. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and affirmed the administrative decision.
healthcare
Banks v. Apfel
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2001-01-29
The case involved a plaintiff's appeal of the denial of Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, following an earlier remand for administrative reconsideration of his claim of disability due to conditions including pneumoconiosis. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment and applied the five-step sequential evaluation process for disability claims, along with standards for weighing medical evidence and assessing pain allegations. It determined that the administrative law judge had not adequately considered opinions from treating physicians indicating disability as of September 6, 1993, and that testimony from the medical advisor was unpersuasive and incomplete regarding the plaintiff's functional limitations and diagnoses. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision in part, remanding for an award of benefits starting from that date while affirming the denial for the earlier period.
labor & employmenthealthcare
Kentucky, Natural Resources Cabinet v. Daniels (In Re Daniels)
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1991-06-07 · cited 2×
This case involved a bankruptcy debtor, Lyle Daniels, who had violated Kentucky mining laws by conducting unpermitted and over-acreage surface coal mining, leading to state-issued cessation orders and injunctions requiring site reclamation. The bankruptcy court held that Daniels' reclamation obligations were dischargeable in bankruptcy to the extent they required monetary expenditure and did not qualify as exceptions under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). On appeal, the district court reversed, finding that the Commonwealth of Kentucky qualified as an "entity" injured by the debtor's willful and malicious violations of mining statutes, thus excepting the debts from discharge under § 523(a)(6) despite being dischargeable as claims under Sixth Circuit precedent.
environmentbusiness & regulatory