Case Summary
**Case Summary: Arthur Coffman, III v. Michael Astrue**
**Docket Number:** 7839804
**Court:** [Specify Court Name, e.g., United States District Court]
**Date:** [Specify Date of Decision]
**Parties:**
- **Plaintiff:** Arthur Coffman, III
- **Defendant:** Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
**Background:**
Arthur Coffman, III filed a case against Michael Astrue, the then-Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), challenging the denial of his application for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. The plaintiff contended that he qualified for benefits due to a disabling condition that significantly impaired his ability to work.
**Key Issues:**
1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in evaluating Coffman’s residual functional capacity (RFC).
2. Whether the ALJ properly considered the medical evidence provided by Coffman’s treating physicians.
3. Interpretation of relevant regulations and the application of the five-step sequential evaluation process for disability determinations.
**Procedural History:**
Coffman initially applied for SSDI benefits, but his application was denied at the initial determination level. Following this, he requested a hearing before an ALJ, who again denied his claim after considering the evidence presented. Coffman subsequently filed a request for review by the Appeals Council, which was denied, leading to his appeal in federal court.
**Arguments:**
- **Plaintiff's Argument:** Coffman argued that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to the opinions of his treating healthcare providers, which indicated his inability to perform substantial gainful activity. He also claimed that the ALJ's assessment of his RFC was not supported by substantial evidence.
- **Defendant's Argument:** Astrue maintained that the ALJ's decision was consistent with the evidence and applicable laws, arguing that the appointment of an impartial vocational expert during the hearing helped to accurately assess Coffman’s abilities and limitations.
**Ruling:**
[Insert the court's decision regarding the appeal. The ruling may affirm, reverse, or remand the ALJ's decision. Provide details about whether benefits were awarded or if the case was sent back for further proceedings.]
**Conclusion:**
The case of Arthur Coffman, III v. Michael Astrue highlights the complexities involved in disability determinations and the critical role of medical evidence in supporting claims for Social Security benefits. The decision in this case underscores the importance of proper evaluation of RFC and adherence to procedural fairness in administrative hearings.
**Note:** This summary is a hypothetical reconstruction based on the provided case title and docket number. Further specifics regarding the case outcome, detailed arguments, or legal analyses should be researched to create an accurate representation of actual court proceedings.