Hurtado v. Astrue, No. 4:2007cv03486 - Document 16 (S.D. Tex. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 14 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, and denying 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm Smith) Parties notified. (jmarchand)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
with cognitive disorder, not 16 Dkt. 13, at p. 7. 17 TR. 187. 18 TR. 196. 19 TR. 197. 8 otherwise specified, based on mild to moderate impairments in nonverbal intellectual, executive, and memory functioning.20 In November 2006 a consultative examination was performed by Mark Lehman, Ph.D., who assessed claimant with only slight to moderate limitations in work-related mental activities.21 This examining opinion evidence provides additional substantial support for the ALJ’s Step 3 conclusion. Unlike Audler, Hurtado has provided no uncontradicted medical evidence undermining the ALJ’s conclusion that she did not meet or equal a listing impairment. Thus, the ALJ’s failure to present a reasoned explanation for its Step 3 finding did not affect Hurtado’s substantial rights, and must be classified as harmless error. Hurtado is entitled to no relief on this basis. Conclusion The Commissioner’s motion is granted, Hurtado’s motion is denied, and the decision of the Commissioner denying Hurtado’s claim for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act is affirmed. Signed August 15, 2008, at Houston, Texas. 20 TR. 181. 21 TR. 233-35. 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
