Case Summary
**Case Summary: Pamela Back v. Carolyn Colvin, Docket Number 3072488**
**Court:** United States District Court
**Date:** [Insert Date of Judgment]
**Parties:**
- **Plaintiff:** Pamela Back
- **Defendant:** Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
**Background:**
Pamela Back filed for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming she was unable to work due to various physical and mental health issues. Her application was initially denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Upon exhausting the administrative review process, Back appealed the decision to the district court, contending that the SSA's finding of her not being disabled was not supported by substantial evidence.
**Issues:**
The primary issues in the case involved:
1. Whether the ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Back's disability claim.
2. The sufficiency of the evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination of Back’s residual functional capacity (RFC).
3. Whether the ALJ properly considered Back's subjective complaints regarding her symptoms.
**Arguments:**
- **Plaintiff (Pamela Back):** Back argued that the ALJ failed to adequately consider her medical records and the testimony she provided regarding her impairments. She maintained that her condition was debilitating enough to prevent her from maintaining gainful employment, and the ALJ's decision disregarded key evidence of her limitations.
- **Defendant (Carolyn Colvin):** The defense argued that the ALJ properly evaluated Back’s claim in accordance with established legal standards and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Back was not disabled under the criteria set forth by the SSA.
**Court’s Findings:**
The district court reviewed the ALJ’s decision to ensure that the legal standards were appropriately applied and that the factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court assessed the treatment of Back’s medical records, testimony, and the credibility of her claims regarding her limitations.
**Judgment:**
The court ruled in favor of [either the plaintiff or defendant], finding that [insert ruling details]. The court held that [summarize the court's reasoning and any legal precedent referenced].
**Conclusion:**
The case of Pamela Back v. Carolyn Colvin highlights the complexities involved in disability determinations, specifically regarding the evaluation of subjective complaints and the necessity for adequate assessment of medical evidence in making a disability determination under the Social Security Act.
**Note:**
For detailed information, including specific legal precedents, procedural history, and the full text of the court's decision, it is advised to consult the official court documents or legal databases.