Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180323_0000291.NAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:55:10+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Peggy Gaylor Cash (“Cash”) seeks review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 205(g) of the Social Security Act, of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”), denying her application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). (Doc. 1). Cash timely pursued and exhausted her administrative remedies. This case is therefore ripe for review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The undersigned has carefully considered the record and, for the reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this action is REMANDED for further proceedings.
Cash filed an application for DIB on March 25, 2013, alleging disability beginning on August 14, 2012. (Tr. 34, 125-29). The Commissioner initially denied Cash's claim, (tr. 91), and Cash requested a hearing before an ALJ, (tr. 84-85). After a September 11, 2014 video hearing, the ALJ denied Cash's claim on February 26, 2015. (Tr. 34-46). Cash sought review by the Appeals Council, but it denied her request for review on August 8, 2016. (Tr. 1-4). On that date, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. On October 4, 2016, Cash initiated this action. (Doc. 1).
Cash was forty-three years old on the date the ALJ rendered his decision. (Tr. 44). Cash has a high school education and past work as a production supervisor, manager of a candle-making company, and a bar manager. (Tr. 44, 55-57, 65-66).
The court's review of the Commissioner's decision is narrowly circumscribed. The function of this Court is to determine whether the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and whether proper legal standards were applied. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1422 (1971); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002). This court must “scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. It is “more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Id.
This Court must uphold factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence. However, it reviews the ALJ's legal conclusions de novo because no presumption of validity attaches to the ALJ's determination of the proper legal standards to be applied. Davis v. Shalala, 985 F.2d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 1993). If the court finds an error in the ALJ's application of the law, or if the ALJ fails to provide the court with sufficient reasoning for determining the proper legal analysis has been conducted, it must reverse the ALJ's decision. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991).
To qualify for disability benefits and establish his or her entitlement for a period of disability, a claimant must be disabled as defined by the Social Security Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. The Regulations define “disabled” as “the inability to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months.” 20 C.F.R § 404.1505(a). To establish entitlement to disability benefits, a claimant must provide evidence of a “physical or mental impairment” which “must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508.

References: § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 404
 § 404