Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150605_0000246.MGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-23 19:48:46
Document Index: 241796308

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 395', 'art, 405', '§ 423', '§ 404', 'art, 357', '§ 404', 'art 404', 'art 404']

TABBARIS LEON BROWN, Plaintiff,v.CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
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 neither decide facts, re-weigh evidence, nor 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. The Plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that he is unable to perform his previous work. Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001 (11th Cir. 1986). The Plaintiff's burden is a heavy one and is so stringent that it has been described as bordering on the unrealistic. Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1083 (5th Cir. 1981).[2] A Plaintiff seeking Social Security disability benefits must demonstrate that he suffers from an impairment that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity for a twelve-month period. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1). In addition to meeting the requirements of these statutes, in order to be eligible for disability payments, a Plaintiff must meet the requirements of the Commissioner's regulations promulgated pursuant to the authority given in the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1 et seq. Under the Regulations, the Commissioner uses a five-step procedure to determine if a Plaintiff is disabled. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). First, the Commissioner determines whether the Plaintiff is working. Id. If not, the Commissioner determines whether the Plaintiff has an impairment which prevents the performance of basic work activities. Id. Second, the Commissioner determines the severity of the Plaintiff's impairment or combination of impairments. Id. Third, the Commissioner determines whether the Plaintiff's severe impairment(s) meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of Part 404 of the Regulations (the "Listing"). Id. Fourth, the Commissioner determines whether the Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC") can meet the physical and mental demands of past work. Id. Fifth and finally, the Commissioner determines whether the Plaintiff's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience prevent the performance of any other work. In arriving at a decision, the Commissioner must consider the combined effects of all of the alleged impairments, without regard to whether each, if considered separately, would be disabling. Id. The Commissioner's failure to apply correct legal standards to the evidence is grounds for reversal. Id. ISSUES
I. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's mental impairment(s) and determined that Plaintiff does not meet either Listing 12.05B or 12.05C.
II. Whether the ALJ adequately explained the reasoning for his evaluation of a consultative examiner's opinion and incorporated it into the RFC.
Plaintiff applied for supplemental security income on November 17, 2011 alleging that he has been disabled to work since January 31, 2008. Tr. 11, ECF No. 10-2. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and Plaintiff timely requested a hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ conducted a hearing on July 24, 2013. Id. Following the hearing, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on August 23, 2013. Tr. 11-22. The Appeals Council ultimately denied Plaintiff's Request for Review on November 10, 2014. Tr. 1-3. This appeal followed.
After consideration of the written evidence and the hearing testimony in this case, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity as defined by the Act since November 17, 2011, the application date. Tr. 13. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the severe impairments of borderline intellectual functioning (rule-out mild mental retardation), obesity, and asthma. Id. The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff had no impairments or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled any one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Tr. 14-16.
After consideration of the entire record, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with nonexertional limitations. Tr. 16-20. Plaintiff had no past relevant work. Tr. 20. The ALJ further found that Plaintiff was 28 years old on the alleged disability date, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49. Id. ...