Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

N.D. Alabama

Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

DecidedFebruary 5, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-00289

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner (Johnson 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

Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, (N.D. Ala. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION

JOEY MCKINLIN JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00289-NAD ) SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ) COMMISSIONER, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff Joel McKinlin Johnson appeals the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) on his claim for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Doc. 1. Plaintiff Johnson applied for benefits with an alleged onset date of August 24, 2013. Doc. 14 at 2. The Commissioner denied Johnson’s claim for benefits. Doc. 14 at 2. In this appeal, the parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Doc. 16; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision. ISSUE FOR REVIEW In this appeal, Johnson did not file a brief. Nevertheless, Johnson seeks reversal of the finding of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that Johnson was not disabled. Doc. 1. In particular, Johnson states that “all medical records were

presented and gone over.” Doc. 1 at 3. Johnson also appears to take issue with the timing of the filing of his Appeals Council review, stating that he “went to [the] Albertville [Social Security] office on [the] last day of filing for appeal” and he does

not “know why it took 5 (five) days for the [Social Security] office to file for appeal.” Doc. 1 at 3–4. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A claimant applying for Social Security benefits bears the burden of proving

disability. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show disability, which is defined as 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); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505. A physical or mental impairment is “an impairment that results from

anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3).

The Social Security Administration (SSA) reviews an application for disability benefits in three stages: (1) initial determination, including reconsideration; (2) review by an ALJ; and (3) review by the SSA Appeals Council.

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a)(1)–(4). When a claim for disability benefits reaches an ALJ as part of the administrative process, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential analysis to determine

whether the claimant is disabled. The ALJ must determine the following: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity;

(2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments;

(3) if so, whether that impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals any “Listing of Impairments” in the Social Security regulations;

(4) if not, whether the claimant can perform his past relevant work in light of his “residual functional capacity” or “RFC”; and,

(5) if not, whether, based on the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, he can perform other work found in the national economy.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); see Winschel v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). The Social Security regulations “place a very heavy burden on the claimant to demonstrate both a qualifying disability and an inability to perform past relevant work.” Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. At step five of the inquiry, the burden temporarily shifts to the Commissioner “to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy which, given the claimant’s impairments, the claimant can perform.” Washington v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018)

(quoting Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987)). If the Commissioner makes that showing, the burden then shifts back to the claimant to show that he cannot perform those jobs. Id. So, while the burden temporarily shifts

to the Commissioner at step five, the overall burden of proving disability always remains on the claimant. Id. STANDARD OF REVIEW The federal courts have only a limited role in reviewing a plaintiff’s claim

under the Social Security Act. The court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether “it is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997).

A. With respect to fact issues, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s “factual findings are conclusive if supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). “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. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). In evaluating whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s

decision, a district court may not “decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence,” or substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (citation and quotation marks omitted); see Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835,

838 (11th Cir. 1982) (similar). If the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court must affirm, “[e]ven if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings.” Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158 (quoting Martin, 894 F.2d

at 1529). But “[t]his does not relieve the court of its responsibility to scrutinize the record in its entirety to ascertain whether substantial evidence supports each essential administrative finding.” Walden, 672 F.2d at 838 (citing Strickland v.

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