Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190604_0000780.MAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-12-11 20:15:48
Document Index: 177682349

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 636', '§ 423', '§ 423', 'art, 355', '§ 416']

FindACase™ | Ziglar v. Berryhill
Ziglar v. Berryhill
LORETTA K. ZIGLAR, Plaintiff,
GRAY M. BORDEN UNITED STATUS MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff Loretta K. Ziglar applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, alleging in both claims a disability onset date of August 31, 2009. Ziglar's application for benefits was denied at the initial administrative level. She then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ held a hearing on June 20, 2017. She denied Ziglar's claims on June 28, 2017. Ziglar requested a review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council, which declined review on April 17, 2018. As a result, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) as of April 17, 2018.
Ziglar's case is now before the court for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have consented to the full jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Based on its careful review of the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner is due to be AFFIRMED.
To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show the “inability to engage in 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) & 416(i). A physical or mental impairment is “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrated by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3). Ziglar bears the burden of proving that she is disabled, and is responsible for producing evidence sufficient to support her claim. See Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003).
See Frame v. Comm&#39;r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 596 Fed.Appx. 908, 910 (11th Cir. 2015). &ldquo;An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads either to the next question, or, [at] steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than at step three, leads to a determination of &lsquo;not disabled.&#39;&rdquo; McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(f)). “Once the finding is made that a claimant cannot return to prior work the burden of proof shifts to the Secretary to show other work the ...