Opinion of the Court — Norton v. Commissioner of Social Security

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 14, 2002
Case: Norton v. Commissioner of Social Security
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

ORDER Sheila Norton appeals a district court order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits. The parties have waived oral argument and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). Norton filed an application for supplemental security income benefits alleging that she suffered from scoliosis. Following a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Norton was not disabled because she could perform a substantial number of jobs in' the economy. The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s determination. Norton then filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. Upon de *176 novo review of a magistrate judge’s report, the district court granted judgment to the Commissioner. Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner’s decision. See Brainard v. Sec’y of Health Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681 (1989). Norton contends that she satisfies § 1.05A of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The listing requires x-ray evidence of calcification of the anterior and lateral ligaments; or bilateral ankylosis of …

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.