From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
Mejia v. Astrue
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
719 F. Supp. 2d 328 (2010)
Facts
Joseph Mejia applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Mejia claimed he had been continuously disabled since October 16, 2007, due to heart failure and hypertension. Mejia’s heart failure was controlled; however, he experienced chronic shortness of breath and fatigue. Following a hearing, an administrative-law judge (ALJ) found Mejia’s medically determinable impairments were severe but did not meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ based his finding on the medical evidence provided, which did not contain evidence of systolic and diastolic failures with specific measurements of damage to Mejia’s left ventricle nor hospitalizations for those failures that are required for controlled chronic heart failure to meet the disability listing. The ALJ found that Mejia was not disabled after further finding that he could perform substantial gainful activity available in the national economy. As a result, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Michael Astrue (defendant), denied Mejia’s applications for benefits. Mejia sued the commissioner in a United States district court to have the administrative decision reversed and remanded.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peck, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
