Case Summary
**Case Summary: Michele Hermann v. Carolyn Colvin (Docket Number: 2591059)**
**Court:** United States District Court
**Date:** [Insert Date of Decision]
**Citation:** Michele Hermann v. Carolyn Colvin, Docket No. 2591059
**Overview:**
Michele Hermann filed a case against Carolyn Colvin, the then-Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), concerning the denial of her application for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. Hermann alleged that she suffered from various medical conditions that prevented her from engaging in substantial gainful activity.
**Facts:**
- Michele Hermann applied for SSDI benefits, asserting that her disabilities rendered her unable to work.
- The SSA denied her application, leading to Hermann’s request for a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
- The ALJ reviewed medical records, Hermann's testimony, and the reports from treating physicians and vocational experts.
- After the hearing, the ALJ ruled that Hermann was not disabled under the Social Security Act, finding that she could perform other work available in the national economy.
**Issues:**
The main issues in this case included:
1. Whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
2. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Hermann's subjective complaints of pain and limitations.
3. Whether the ALJ correctly applied the five-step sequential analysis for determining disability.
**Ruling:**
The United States District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision for legal error and substantial evidence. The court affirmed the decision, agreeing with the ALJ's assessment that:
- Hermann's impairments did not meet or equal the criteria of any listing in the SSA's guidelines.
- The ALJ adequately considered Hermann's testimony regarding her daily activities and the severity of her condition.
- The vocational expert’s testimony provided a reasonable basis to conclude that there were jobs available that Hermann could perform despite her limitations.
**Conclusion:**
The court upheld the SSA's denial of Michele Hermann's application for SSDI benefits. Hermann's appeal was denied, and the court concluded that the ALJ's decision was consistent with the law and supported by substantial evidence in the record.
**Key Takeaway:**
This case underscores the importance of substantial evidence in disability determinations and the ALJ’s discretion in assessing the credibility of claimant testimony and the medical evidence presented in such cases.
(Note: The above content is a fictionalized summary created for illustrative purposes and may not reflect the actual details of the case.)