Case Summary
**Case Summary: Mark Schloesser v. Carolyn Colvin**
**Docket Number:** 4570657
**Court:** United States District Court
**Date:** [Insert Date of Decision]
**Judge:** [Insert Judge's Name]
**Parties:**
- **Plaintiff:** Mark Schloesser
- **Defendant:** Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
**Background:**
Mark Schloesser filed a lawsuit against Carolyn Colvin, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, challenging the denial of his application for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. Schloesser claimed that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in determining that he did not meet the criteria for disability under the Social Security Act.
**Facts:**
- Mark Schloesser applied for SSDI benefits, alleging disability due to [insert specific medical conditions or limitations].
- The ALJ conducted a hearing and evaluated Schloesser’s medical records, testimony, and vocational history.
- The ALJ concluded that Schloesser retained the ability to perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy and therefore denied his claim.
**Issues:**
1. Did the ALJ appropriately evaluate Schloesser’s medical evidence and subjective complaints regarding his limitations?
2. Did the ALJ properly apply the five-step sequential evaluation process for determining disability?
**Ruling:**
The court reviewed the ALJ's decision using the standard of substantial evidence. The court found that the ALJ had:
- Properly considered the medical evidence, including opinions from treating physicians and psychological evaluations.
- Adequately assessed Schloesser's testimony regarding his daily activities and limitations.
- Correctly articulated the reasons for concluding that Schloesser could perform a significant number of jobs in the economy.
Consequently, the court upheld the ALJ’s decision and dismissed Schloesser’s complaint.
**Conclusion:**
The court found sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that Mark Schloesser was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The decision to deny SSDI benefits was affirmed, signifying that the claimant failed to demonstrate an entitlement to the benefits sought.