Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180306_0000780.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:55:04+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Jennifer Dunaway Beasley seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.
. . . review the Commissioner's decision for substantial evidence. Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotation omitted). . . . “We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (quotation and brackets omitted). “If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).
Mitchell v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014).
. . . a five-step, “sequential” process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(1). If an ALJ finds a claimant disabled or not disabled at any given step, the ALJ does not go on to the next step. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4). At the first step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). At the second step, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments for which the claimant allegedly suffers is “severe.” Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). At the third step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant's severe impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If not, the ALJ must then determine at step four whether the claimant has the RFC to perform her past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant cannot perform her past relevant work, the ALJ must determine at step five whether the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, considering the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. An ALJ may make this determination either by applying the Medical Vocational Guidelines or by obtaining the testimony of a [Vocational Expert (VE)].
Stone v. Comm'r. of Soc. Sec. Admin., 596 Fed.Appx., 878, 879 (11th Cir. 2015) (footnote added).
.. . . except that [she] is limited to occasional lower extremity bilateral pedal control pushing or pulling, occasional bending, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and climbing of ramps or stairs. [She] is precluded from climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. [She] is precluded from exposure to extreme heat or cold, vibration or machinery that causes vibrations, and hazardous conditions such as unprotected heights, dangerous machinery, and uneven surfaces. [She] would be limited to occasional exposure to pulmonary irritants such as fumes, dusts, odors, and gases. In addition, [she] is limited to simple, routine tasks involving no more than simple, short instructions with simple work-related decisions with few work place changes. [She] would be limited to frequent interactions with the public, co-workers, and supervisors.
Plaintiff, he determined, was capable of performing her past work as a receptionist (sedentary, semi-skilled work with an SVP of 4), as well as alternative jobs as a call-out operator, order clerk, and telephone clerk, all sedentary unskilled work with an SVP of 2. Tr. 23-24. Beasley disagrees, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly weigh the medical opinion evidence and erred in evaluating her subjective pain testimony. Doc. 10.

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