Earnest v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

N.D. Alabama

Earnest v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

DecidedSeptember 30, 2020

Docket6:19-cv-00771

StatusUnknown

This text of Earnest v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner (Earnest v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earnest v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, (N.D. Ala. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA JASPER DIVISION

JAMES EARNEST, } } Plaintiff, } } v. } Case No.: 6:19-cv-0771-MHH } ANDREW SAUL, } Commissioner of the } Social Security Administration, }

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c), plaintiff James Earnest seeks judicial review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his request for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. For the reasons stated below, the Court affirms the Commissioner’s decision. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW The scope of review in this matter is limited. “When, as in this case, the ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals Council denies review,” a district court “review[s] the ALJ’s ‘factual findings with deference’ and [her] ‘legal conclusions with close scrutiny.’” Riggs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 522 Fed. Appx. 509, 510-11 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001)).

A district court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s findings. “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to

support a conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). In making this evaluation, a district court may not “decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence,” or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011)

(internal quotations and citation omitted). If the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, a district court “must affirm even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings.” Costigan v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 603

Fed. Appx. 783, 786 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158). With respect to the ALJ’s legal conclusions, a district court must determine whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. If a district court finds an error in the ALJ’s application of the law or finds that the ALJ did not provide sufficient

reasoning to demonstrate that the ALJ conducted a proper legal analysis, then the district court must reverse the ALJ’s decision. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F. 2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991). II. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK To be eligible for disability benefits, a claimant must be disabled. Gaskin v.

Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 533 Fed. Appx. 929, 930 (11th Cir. 2013). “A claimant is disabled if he is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically-determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death or which

has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.” Gaskin, 533 Fed. Appx. at 930 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). A claimant must prove that he is disabled. Gaskin, 533 Fed. Appx. at 930 (citing Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003)).

To determine whether a claimant has proven that he is disabled, an ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process:

(1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.

“The claimant has the burden of proof with respect to the first four steps.” Wright v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 327 Fed. Appx. 135, 136-37 (11th Cir. 2009). “Under the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other jobs that exist in the national economy.” Wright, 327 Fed. Appx.

at 137. III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FINDINGS OF THE ALJ Mr. Earnest applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits

and supplemental security income on August 26, 2016. (Doc. 6-3, p. 12). Mr. Earnest alleges that his disability began November 10, 2015. (Doc. 6-3, p. 12). The Commissioner initially denied Mr. Earnest’s claims on January 9, 2017, and Mr. Earnest requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge or ALJ. (Doc. 6-

3, pp. 35-38). The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on June 28, 2018. (Doc. 6- 3, pp. 12-25). In his decision, the ALJ found that Mr. Earnest has not engaged in substantial

gainful activity since November 10, 2015, the alleged onset date. (Doc. 6-3, p. 14). The ALJ determined that Mr. Earnest was suffering from the following severe impairments: complex partial seizure disorder, degenerative disc disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine, unspecified depressive disorder, anxiety disorder/post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and history of cannabis use/abuse. (Doc. 6-3, p. 14). The ALJ also determined that Mr. Earnest has a history of left shoulder injury that is a non-severe impairment. (Doc. 6-3, p. 14). Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded

that Mr. Earnest did not have an impairment or a combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Doc. 6-3, p. 14).

Given Mr. Earnest’s impairments, the ALJ evaluated Mr. Earnest’s residual functional capacity. The ALJ determined that Mr. Earnest had the RFC to: perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except: The claimant can occasionally lift and/or carry up to twenty pounds and frequently lift and /or carry up to ten pounds. He can stand and/or walk in combination, with normal breaks, for at least six hours during an eight- hour workday and he can sit, with normal breaks, for up to eight hours during an eight- hour workday. The claimant can occasionally climb ramps and stairs an should never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The claimant can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and/or crawl. He can tolerate occasional (As term “occasional” is defined in the DOT) exposure to extreme heat, extreme cold, wetness, and humidity. He should not be required to work in areas of vibration. He should avoid exposure to industrial hazards including working at unprotected heights, working in close proximity to moving dangerous machinery, the operation of motorized vehicle and equipment, near large open bodies of water or near an open fire or flame. He can perform simple routine tasks requiring no more than short simple instructions and simple work related decision making with few work place changes. He can have occasional interactions with co- workers and supervisors with members of the general public. The claimant can adapt and respond appropriately to routine changes in the workplace.

(Doc. 6-3, p. 18).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI