Opinion ID: 585282
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Support by Substantial Evidence

Text: 29 Finally, we must consider whether Jacobs' determination that Sandoval was not disabled was arbitrary and capricious because it was unsupported by substantial evidence.  'Substantial evidence is such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached by the [decisionmaker].' Substantial evidence requires 'more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.'  Flint v. Sullivan, 951 F.2d 264, 266 (10th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). 30 The evidence considered by Jacobs consisted primarily of the two doctors' reports that reached contrary conclusions as to whether Sandoval was totally disabled. A member of the Review Committee testified that Dr. Walsky's report was more detailed, that it contained more objective medical findings, and that his conclusions made more sense based on the medical evidence. On this record, we must conclude that substantial evidence supported Jacobs' determination. 31 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment.