LAWS v. ASTRUE

7 Citing cases

  1. Naomi W. v. O'Malley

    Action 2:23cv332 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2024)

    In finding that plaintiff was not disabled from her application filing date of October 2020, through the date of the decision, the ALJ implicitly found that plaintiff also was not entitled to a closed period of disability at any time during that time frame. R. 18, 33; see Laws v. Astrue, No. 3:08cv722, 2009 WL 3270770, at *7 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2009) (holding the ALJ implicitly found that plaintiff was not entitled to closed period of disability because the ALJ found plaintiff was not disabled from the alleged onset date through the date of the decision).

  2. Jennifer G. v. O'Malley

    CIVIL 3:23-cv-113-DJN-SLS (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2024)

    The ALJ found that at no time was claimant ‘disabled' under the Social Security Act.”); Laws v. Astrue, 3:08-cv-722, 2009 WL 3270770, at *7 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2009) (“The ALJ found that Plaintiff had not been under a disability from the alleged onset date through the date of his decision. In doing so, it is implicit that he also found that Plaintiff was not disabled for a closed period within that time span.”)

  3. Courtney L. v. Kijakazi

    Action 2:23cv111 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2023)

    As true, No. 3:08cv722, 2009 WL 3270770, at *7 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2009) (holding the ALJ implicitly found that plaintiff was not entitled to closed period of disability because the ALJ found plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision).

  4. L.B. v. Kijakazi

    CIVIL 3:20-cv-00308 (HEH) (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2021)

    Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, “Craig does not mandate that objective medical evidence cut in Plaintiff's favor at step two simply because the ALJ made a favorable finding at step one.” Laws v. Astrue, No. 3:08CV722, 2009 WL 3270770, at *8-9 (E.D.Va. Oct. 8, 2009) (finding an ALJ did not contradict his step one finding when he considered objective medical evidence, Plaintiff's statements about her pain and any other evidence relevant to the severity of the impairment at step two.) The ALJ's finding at step one does not control his evaluation of the objective evidence with regards to the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff's pain and the extent to which it affects her ability to work.

  5. Charlene L. v. Saul

    Civil No. 3:19cv626 (REP) (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2021)   Cited 8 times

    Moreover, while the Court recognizes that some courts have held that when an ALJ makes a general finding of "not disabled," "[i]mplicit in this finding is the fact that claimant was not entitled to a closed period of disability at any relevant time," the case at hand is factually distinct. See, e.g., Vanduzer v. Colvin, No. 2:14-CV-17230, 2015 WL 4715974, at *27 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 7, 2015) (citing Atwood v. Astrue, No. 5:11CV002, 2011 WL 7938408, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2011)); see also Puckett v. Barnhart, 61 F. App'x 21, 24 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003) (rejecting claimant's argument that he was entitled to a closed period of disability because "[t]he ALJ found that at no time was claimant 'disabled' under the Social Security Act[.]"); Laws v. Astrue, No. 3:08CV722, 2009 WL 3270770, at *7 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2009) (holding ALJ implicitly found that plaintiff was not entitled to closed period of disability because ALJ found plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision). In those cases, the plaintiffs did not specifically allege a closed period of disability before the ALJ.

  6. Spissinger v. Colvin

    No. 5:12-cv-3454-DCN (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2016)

    At the time of the court's Order, a number of courts—including one court in this district—had taken a different position on this issue, finding that an ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss a claimant's work history in evaluating the claimant's credibility. See Sondergeld v. Colvin, 2013 WL 3465294, at *6 (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2013) ("[T]he ALJ's failure to specifically discuss [p]laintiff's good work history does not undermine his credibility assessment."); Ramey v. Astrue, No. 4:11-cv-2762, 2012 WL 6093797, at *5 (D.S.C. Dec. 7, 2012) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that remand was required because ALJ failed to consider "long and exemplary work history" in evaluating plaintiff's testimony regarding her "pain and other subjective symptoms"); Laws v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3270770, at *8 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2009) (affirming ALJ's decision where ALJ failed to discuss the plaintiff's work record in connection with credibility determination). The Order even cited a prior decision from this court recognizing the lack of consensus on this issue.

  7. Pope v. Colvin

    Civil Action No. 2:15cv00001 (W.D. Va. Mar. 8, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    In short, a claimants' work history, standing alone, is insufficient to contravene an ALJ's credibility finding. See Cooper, 2011 WL 6742500, at *7 (citing Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 502 (2d Cir. 1998); Laws v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3270770, at *6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2009)). Here, as previously stated, the ALJ based his credibility finding on the record evidence as a whole, including Pope's activities of daily living, inconsistencies between her testimony and the medical treatment notes and the objective medical testing.