Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cox v. Social, 97-1219 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 97-1219 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 01, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Circuit Judges.Francis M. Jackson on brief for appellant.__________________ _________________, Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas D. Ramsey, Assistant, _________________, Regional Counsel, Region I, Social Security Administration, on brief, for appellee.an ALJ's decision is not precise).
USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 97-1219


BARBARA M. COX,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Francis M. Jackson on brief for appellant. __________________
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, David R. Collins, __________________ _________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas D. Ramsey, Assistant _________________
Regional Counsel, Region I, Social Security Administration, on brief
for appellee.


____________________

November 26, 1997
____________________















Per Curiam. Claimant-appellant Barbara Cox appeals __________

from a judgment of the district court adopting the

Magistrate's report and affirming an order of the

Commissioner of Social Security that Cox was not entitled to

disability benefits. Having carefully reviewed the record

and the parties' briefs, we reject each of appellant's

assignments of error under Social Security Ruling 83-20, and

affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the

Magistrate's thorough report of December 16, 1996. We add

here only that, contrary to appellant's suggestion, the

Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) decision contains findings

adequate to permit effective review of his determination as

to appellant's credibility, and there was no prejudice in the

ALJ's failure to separately mention appellant's husband's

affidavit. See Stein v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 317, 319 (7th ___ _____ ________

Cir. 1992) (noting that the level of articulation required in

an ALJ's decision is not precise). The finding that

appellant did not demonstrate the onset of a severe mental

impairment prior to the expiration of her insured status is

supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Affirmed. ________











-2-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer