Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170328_0000397.MAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-24 02:58:14
Document Index: 652997575

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 636', '§ 241', '§ 406', 'art, 284', 'art, 395']

GWENDOLYN RUSSELL, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff Gwendolyn Russell commenced this action on September 22, 2015, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner denying her application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and Supplemental Security Income. (Doc. 1, 12, 13). Plaintiff alleged disability as of March 31, 2012 due to asthma, a hernia, lower back problems, anemia, and high blood pressure. (Doc. 13, 14-2 at 17-26). On April 24, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Angela L. Neel ("the ALJ") issued an adverse decision.[2] (Doc. 14-2 at 17-26). The Appeals Council denied plaintiffs request for review, and the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. (Id. at 2-8).
In the instant appeal, the plaintiff requests that the court remand this cause to the Commissioner under either sentence four or sentence six of § 405(g). (Doc. 12). This case is ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 6, 7). For the reasons stated herein, and based upon its review of the record, the court finds that the Commissioner's decision is due to be affirmed. Plaintiff also moves for an award of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 241(d) and for an extension of time to file an application for 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) attorney's fees. (Doc. 12 at 10). Because the Commissioner's decision is affirmed, the motions will be denied.
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 (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. A reviewing court "may not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] decision for that of the [Commissioner]." Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). In other words, this court is prohibited from reviewing the Commissioner's findings of fact de novo, even where a preponderance of the evidence supports alternative conclusions.