Case law

Petry v. Berryhill

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Nov 17, 2017

Further, the ALJ did not consider the nature of Claimant’s past relevant work, and that he suffered from numerous physical complaints that clearly rendered him incapable of performing his past work, thus the ALJ’s decision … Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has held that a claimant’s additional “severe” impairment qualifies as a significant work-related limitation for the purpose of § 12.05C. Luckey v. U.S. Dept.

Spence v. Saul

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 2, 2020

He further opined, “[Claimant] is clearly unable to work 5 days per week, 8 hour[s] per day. His age, education and medical conditions make successful competition in the job market highly unlikely.” (Id.) … “Next, the ALJ must determine if the mental impairment is severe, and if so, whether it qualifies as a listed impairment.” Patterson, 846 F.3d at 659; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(d), 416.920a(d).

Adkins v. Berryhill

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Nov 27, 2017

The Social Security regulations establish a five step sequential evaluation process for the adjudication of disability claims. … The regulations outline how the opinions of accepted medical sources should be weighed in determining whether a claimant qualifies for disability benefits. Id. § 404.1527(c).

Carter v. Saul

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 2020

“Next, the ALJ must determine if the mental impairment is severe, and if so, whether it qualifies as a listed impairment.” … Therefore, there is clearly substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. 5 Exhibits 4F, 5F, 6E, 10F, 12F, 15F, 16F, and 23F. (Tr. at 55.)

Piziak v. Berryhill

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 22, 2017

The Social Security Regulations establish a “sequential evaluation” for the adjudication of disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. … Clearly, this evidence, provided just over a month after the ALJ issued her decision, relates to the same time period of the ALJ’s decision. Dr.

Fruth, Inc. v. Cardinal Health, Inc.

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jun 28, 2024

calculated based upon the difference 2 This description does not appear to be challenged by Cardinal at this stage. 3 “Covered entities” are statutorily defined to include 15 types of entities, including Federally Qualified … Second, because it is not clear that Section 3.1 applies to 340B sales, the Court finds that Fruth is entitled to use extrinsic evidence to establish the parties’ intent. See Syl. Pt. 2, Berkeley Cnty. Pub. Serv.

Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Incorporated

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 24, 2025

Mitcheff testified that Wexford “[hasn’t] been able to get an audience with them, but [Wexford] did send a letter, and they clearly understand [Wexford’s] position on” MOUD. … The only policy of sex discrimination that plaintiffs established was a “’policy’ of allowing discretion by local supervisors over employment matters.” Id. at 355. The instant case is dissimilar.