Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170920_0000335.MGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-24 18:35:28
Document Index: 128403196

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 1383', '§ 636', 'art, 395', 'art, 405', 'art 404']

EVA SIMS, Plaintiff,
The Social Security Commissioner, by adoption of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) determination, denied Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income, finding that she is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and Regulations. Plaintiff contends that the Commissioner's decision was in error and seeks review under the relevant provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c). All administrative remedies have been exhausted. Both parties filed their written consents for all proceedings to be conducted by the United States Magistrate Judge, including the entry of a final judgment directly appealable to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).
The court's review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to a determination of whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 1000 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). “Substantial evidence is something more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court's role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is a narrow one. The court may not decide facts, re-weigh evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner.[1] Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). It must, however, decide if the Commissioner applied the proper standards in reaching a decision. Harrell v. Harris, 610 F.2d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). The court must scrutinize the entire record to determine the reasonableness of the Commissioner's factual findings. Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983). However, even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision, it must be affirmed if substantial evidence supports it. Id.
Plaintiff Eva Sims filed her application for supplemental security income on January 31, 2012 alleging that she has been disabled to work since January 10, 2012. Her claims were denied initially on January 4, 2013 and denied on reconsideration on September 20, 2013. She filed a written request for an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on November 11, 2013 and the hearing was conducted on June 17, 2015. Plaintiff testified at the hearing, as well as an impartial vocational expert (“VE”). Tr. 21. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision denying her claims on July 24, 2015. Tr. 18-37. She next requested review by the Appeals Council on August 26, 2015 but was denied on December 7, 2016. Tr. 16, 1-3. Having exhausted the administrative remedies available to her under the Social Security Act, Plaintiff brings this action seeking judicial review of the final decision by the Commissioner to deny her applications for benefits. Her case is ripe for review.
Plaintiff was forty-two years of age when the ALJ rendered his unfavorable decision. She has a limited education, is able to communicate in English, and has past relevant work as a newspaper carrier. Tr. 22, 33. In conducting the five-step sequential analysis of her claims mandated by the Commissioner's regulations, the ALJ found at step two that she has the severe impairment of diabetes mellitus. Finding No. 2; Tr. 23. He further found that her impairments of asthma, obesity, peripheral neuropathy, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), depression, and anxiety are non-severe and explained his reasoning in detail. Finding No. 2; Tr. 23-26. In his step three analysis he concluded that Plaintiff's impairments, considered alone and in combination with one another, do not meet or medically equal the listed impairments set out in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Finding No. 3, Tr. 26. Between steps three and four, the ALJ formulated a residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment which permits Plaintiff to engage in light work with a sit/stand option, with no standing for more than 15 to 20 minutes at a time. Finding No. 4; Tr. 26-32. At step four, he determined that this restricted RFC assessment renders Plaintiff unable to return to her “past relevant work” as a newspaper carrier. At step five, the ALJ ...