Case Summary
**Case Summary: Cynthia Coleman v. Michael Astrue**
**Docket Number:** 7846196
**Court:** [Insert relevant court information, e.g., United States District Court for the [specific district], or Administrative Court]
**Date:** [Insert relevant date]
**Parties Involved:**
- **Plaintiff:** Cynthia Coleman
- **Defendant:** Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
**Background:**
Cynthia Coleman filed a case against Michael Astrue, the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of the decision made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) regarding her claim for disability benefits. The plaintiff alleges that the SSA improperly denied her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
**Factual Overview:**
Cynthia Coleman applied for Social Security disability benefits, asserting that she suffers from medical conditions that prevent her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Following her application, the SSA conducted an evaluation of her claim and ultimately denied her request, concluding that she was not disabled according to the social security regulations.
Coleman subsequently appealed the decision within the SSA, which also upheld the denial. Dissatisfied with the outcome, she sought judicial review, arguing that the SSA's determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and highlighting errors in the administrative proceedings that violated her right to a fair assessment.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the SSA’s decision to deny Cynthia Coleman’s disability benefits was based on substantial evidence.
2. Whether the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in evaluating the medical evidence presented by Coleman.
3. Whether the ALJ appropriately considered Coleman’s residual functional capacity and credibility.
**Arguments:**
- **Plaintiff's Argument:** Coleman contends that the ALJ failed to properly account for her medical impairments and did not appropriately assess the evidence provided by her healthcare providers. She asserts that the ALJ's conclusions are inconsistent with the medical record, and that her conditions significantly impair her ability to work.
- **Defendant's Argument:** The Commissioner argues that the decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony and evaluations from medical professionals. The Commissioner defends the ALJ’s handling of the case and the conclusion that Coleman did not meet the criteria for disability.
**Conclusion:**
The court is tasked with reviewing the evidence presented in the case, evaluating the compliance of the SSA with statutory requirements, and determining whether the denial of benefits was warranted based on the facts of the case. A decision will be made regarding whether to uphold the SSA's decision or to remand the case for further proceedings.
**Next Steps:**
The court will issue an opinion regarding the merits of Coleman's appeal, which may involve either affirming the Social Security Administration's decision, reversing it, or remanding the case for additional evaluation by the SSA.
[Note: Additional case-specific details such as the ruling date, holdings, or further proceedings would be included where applicable. Ensure to verify the exact nature of the case and its outcomes, as names and docket numbers may not correspond to real cases.]