Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Berryhill

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division

July 20, 2017

BOBBI ANTONIEYA JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A BERRYHILL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

         Social Security Appeal

          ORDER

          STEPHEN HYLES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The Social Security Commissioner, by adoption of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) determination, denied Plaintiff's application for child's disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), finding that she was 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).

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         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 she is unable to perform her 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 she suffers from an impairment that prevents her 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 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 assigned appropriate weight to Plaintiff's treating physician.

         II. Whether the ALJ properly determined that Counselor Hale is not an acceptable medical source.

         Administrative Proceedings

         Plaintiff Bobbi Antonieya Jones filed applications for child's disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income on July 10, 2012, alleging disability beginning on the same date. Her applications were denied initially on November 2, 2012 and on reconsideration on March 5, 2013. She filed a written request for an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on March 13, 2013 and the hearing was held on August 11, 2014. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing with her attorney and gave testimony, as did an impartial vocational expert (VE). Tr. 17. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision denying her claims on November 7, 2014. Tr. 14-32. Plaintiff sought review by the Appeals Council on December 22, 2014, but was denied on May 7, 2016. Tr. 7-13; 1-6. Having exhausted the administrative remedies available to her under the Social Security Act she now seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision to deny her benefits.

         Statement of Facts and Evidence

         When the ALJ issued his decision, Plaintiff was twenty years of age. She has a high school education and no past relevant work. Tr. 43, 203, 222, 236. In conducting the five-step sequential analysis set out in the Commissioner's regulations for the evaluation of disability claims, the ALJ found at step two that Plaintiff has severe impairments of anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism spectrum disorder/Asperger's type. Finding No. 3, Tr. 19. Next, he established at step three that her impairments considered both alone and in combination with one another neither meet nor medically equal one of the listed impairments found in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Finding No. 4, Tr. 20-21. Between steps three and four, the ALJ formulated a residual functional capacity assessment (RFC) which permits Plaintiff to engage in a full range of work at all exertional levels with restrictions to simple, routine, repetitive tasks, occasional changes in the work setting and with occasional interaction with the general public and coworkers, but no fast-paced or high production demands. Finding No. 5, Tr. 21-27. At step four the ALJ found Plaintiff to have no past relevant work. Finding No. 6, Tr. 27. At step five he posed hypothetical questions to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.