Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-6_15-cv-00399/USCOURTS-alnd-6_15-cv-00399-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

JASPER DIVISION

THURMAN HARVILL,

Claimant,

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 6:15-CV-399-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Claimant, Thurman Harvill, commenced this action on March 8, 2015,pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of the

Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and

thereby denying his claim for a period of disability, disability insurance, and

supplemental security income benefits. 

The court’s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is

a narrow one. The scope of review is limited to determining whether there is

substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the

Commissioner, and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Lamb v.

Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253

(11th Cir. 1983).

FILED

 2016 Jan-14 AM 10:08

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 6:15-cv-00399-CLS Document 14 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 3
Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s decision is neither supported by

substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legalstandards. Specifically,

claimant asserts that the ALJ erred by failing to find that he would require the ability

to alternate between sitting and standing at will during an eight-hour work day. If the

ALJ did make such an error, it would have been significant, because the vocational

expert testified during the administrative hearing that if a hypothetical individual with

the claimant’slimitations also required a sit-stand option at work, he would be unable

to perform the jobsidentified.

1 The problem is that there simply is no evidence, other

than claimant’s own subjective, self-serving testimony, that claimant would require

a sit-stand option. The ALJ articulated adequate reasons, well-supported by the

administrative record, for finding claimant’stestimony to be lessthan fully credible,2

and claimant has not challenged the credibility finding on appeal. Absent any actual

medical evidence to support the need for a sit-stand option, the ALJ did not err by

failing to include that limitation in her residual functional capacity finding. 

Consistent with the foregoing, the court concludes the ALJ’s decision was

based upon substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable legal standards. 

Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Costs are taxed

against claimant. The Clerk is directed to close this file.

1

 Tr. 78. 

2

See Tr. 29-33. 

2

Case 6:15-cv-00399-CLS Document 14 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 3
DONE this 14th day of January, 2016.

______________________________

United States District Judge

3

Case 6:15-cv-00399-CLS Document 14 Filed 01/14/16 Page 3 of 3