NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0144n.06 F iled: F ebruary 21, 2007 No. 06-5526 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
EV A F UL KS, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. J O ANNE B. B ARN HA R T, COMMI SSI ONER OF SOCI AL SECURI TY, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EA L F RO M THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: NO RRIS, CO LE, and C LA Y, Ci r c uitJudg e s.

P ER CURIAM . Claimant Eva Fulks wa s born with a heart def ect a nd has re ceive d Supplemental Security

I ncome be nefits for most of he r life. In 2002, howeve r, the Commissioner deeme d her no long er disable d beca use her medical impairme nts ha d improved to the extent that her residual f unctional ca

pacity allowed he r to perf

orm g ainful activity
. The district c ourt aff irmed the Com mis sio ne r ’ s d e c i s i o n. B e c a us e he r b e ne fi ts h a ve sin c e be e n r e ins tate d, thi s a pp e a l c on c e rn s o nly the tw o- y e ar p e ri od

duri ngwh ic h s he did

no t r e c e ive the m. Claimant contends that t h e Commissi oner’ s failure to provide a c omplete administrative
rec ord dating back to the 1970s, w hen she wa s fi rst deeme d to be elig ible for be nefits, denied he r an opportunit y for meaning ful revie w. When the cessation of benefits is at i ssue, t he ce ntral question is w he the r t

he c la ima nt’ s me dic a l im

pa ir me nts have imp ro ve d to the po int whe re sh e is able toNo. 06-5526

Fulks v. Commissioner

- 2 - perf orm substantial g ainful ac tivity . 42 U.S.C. § 423(f)
. Howeve r, improvement is mea sured not from the initial awa

rd of benef

its but from “the most rec ent favorable decision that y ou wer e disabled or continued to be dis abled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.994(b)( 1)(i). I n this case, the la st favora ble dec ision prior to termination occ urre d in 1992. Hence , as the district court rec og nized, review of medical
re c or ds datin g ba c k to the 19 70 s w a s n ot n e c e ssa ry to t he ana ly sis
. With th is ti me f

r a me in mi n d , w e h a v e r e v ie w e d th e e xte n s iv e me d ic a l r e cord a nd the de c isi on of the a dmi nis tr a tiv e law j ud ge, whi c h w a s summa ri ly a ff ir me d b y the Ap pe a ls C ounc il. We find substantial evidence to support the conclusion t h at, at the tim e of the decision below, claimant’s c ondition had improved to the ex tent that she could pe rfor m unskill ed, lig ht work. See generally Longworth v. Comm’r , 4 02 F .3 d 5 91 , 5 95 (6 th Cir . 200 5) (C omm iss ion e r’ s d e c isi on mus t be af firmed unless she has applied the incorre ct leg al standard or has made fac tual finding s that are unsup p o rte d b y s u

b s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e )
. F o r h e r p art, c la im an t h e r s e lf p o ints to n o th in g in the
a dmi nis tr a tiv e law j ud g e ’s de c isi on that r e pr e se nts an in c or

re ct legal sta

nd ard or an in su ff ic ie ntl y supported fa ctual finding
. T h e C o mm i s sio ne r’ s d e c isi on is aff irm ed b as edu

p o nt h e r ea s o n i n g co n t ai n edi n the dec ision of the a dminist rative la

w judg e date d April 7, 2004.