Case Summary
**Case Summary: Alexia Colter v. Nancy Berryhill (Docket Number: 4618587)**
**Court:** United States District Court
**Date:** [Insert relevant dates if known]
**Parties:** Alexia Colter (Plaintiff) v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Defendant)
**Overview:**
This case involves an appeal by Alexia Colter challenging the decision made by Nancy Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Colter is contesting the denial of her application for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
**Background:**
Alexia Colter applied for SSDI benefits, asserting that she was unable to work due to various medical conditions. The Social Security Administration (SSA) reviewed her application and ultimately denied her claim, determining that she did not meet the medical criteria for disability as defined under the law. Colter subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had failed to adequately consider the medical evidence and the impact of her impairments on her ability to work.
**Legal Issues:**
1. Did the ALJ err in evaluating the medical evidence presented by Colter?
2. Was the ALJ’s determination regarding Colter's residual functional capacity (RFC) supported by substantial evidence?
3. Did the ALJ adequately consider Colter's subjective complaints of pain and limitations?
**Court’s Findings:**
- The court reviewed the evidence in the record, including medical assessments, treatment notes, and Colter's personal testimony regarding her condition and work capacity.
- The court assessed whether the ALJ applied the appropriate legal standards in reviewing Colter’s application and whether the decision was backed by substantial evidence.
- Attention was given to the treatment history, opinions from treating physicians, and the extent to which the ALJ considered Colter's impairments and daily activities.
**Conclusion:**
The court ultimately concluded that [insert the decision made by the court, such as 'the ALJ's decision was upheld' or 'the case was remanded back to the SSA for further consideration']. This decision was based on [insert the reason for the court's decision, e.g., reasons specified in the findings regarding the adequacy of evidence or legal standards].
**Implications:**
The outcome of this case has implications for how medical evidence is evaluated in disability claims and may guide future assessments of similar cases within the Social Security system.
**Notes:**
- As docket number 4618587 may refer to a specific jurisdiction, it is important to verify the court's decision and any subsequent legal proceedings or appeals related to this case for comprehensive understanding.
[Note: Specific details regarding the judgment, including the reasoning for the court's decision, will depend on the actual court's ruling which may not be included in the provided information.]