Case Summary
**Case Summary: Tanya Cihlar v. Nancy A. Berryhill**
**Docket Number:** 6224102
**Court:** [Insert Court Name, if known]
**Date:** [Insert Date, if known]
**Parties Involved:**
- **Plaintiff:** Tanya Cihlar
- **Defendant:** Nancy A. Berryhill (Former Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration)
**Background:**
In the case of Tanya Cihlar v. Nancy A. Berryhill, the plaintiff, Tanya Cihlar, filed a lawsuit against Nancy A. Berryhill concerning the denial of Social Security disability benefits. Cihlar claimed that her limitations, due to various health conditions, warranted eligibility for disability benefits under the Social Security Act.
**Issues:**
The primary issue in this case was whether the decision by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to deny disability benefits was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence based on Cihlar's medical history, impairments, and the documented impact on her daily functioning.
**Court Proceedings:**
The court conducted a review of the administrative record, examining the evidence presented by Cihlar, including medical evaluations and expert testimonies regarding her physical and mental health. The court assessed whether the SSA's decision adhered to required legal standards and if the administrative law judge properly evaluated the evidence.
**Ruling:**
The court ultimately upheld or overturned the decision of the SSA based on the findings from the review. The ruling would address the adequacy of the SSA's justification for their decision, any procedural errors made during the hearings, and whether Cihlar was entitled to benefits based on the evidence provided.
**Conclusion:**
The final disposition of the case was significant for both Cihlar and the wider implications on how disability claims are adjudicated by the SSA. The ruling would contribute to the legal landscape concerning disability rights and the interpretation of eligibility standards under the Social Security Act.
**Note:** For specific outcomes, detailed legal arguments, and further analysis, additional information such as the court’s opinion and final judgment would be required.