United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Nathan Daniel Dunham commenced this action on January 11,
2016, seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application
for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act. Doc. 1. Dunham
alleges disability as of October 3, 2012 due to various back
and right upper extremity problems, bladder issues, migraine
headaches, and mental impairments. Doc. 15 at 2. On April 21,
2015, following a hearing at which Dunham testified, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an
adverse decision finding that Dunham was not disabled within
the meaning of the Social Security Act. Doc. 16-2. On June
26, 2015, the Appeals Council denied Dunham's request for
review, and the ALJ's decision became the final decision
of the Commissioner. Doc. 16-2.
case is ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 405(g).
The parties have consented to the entry of a final judgment
by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 73.1 of the Local Rules for
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama. Docs. 10 & 11. Based upon a review of the record
and the relevant authority, the court finds that, for the
reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is due
to be REVERSED and this case REMANDED to the Commissioner for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
court reviews a social security case to determine whether the
Commissioner's decision “is supported by
substantial evidence and based upon proper legal
standards.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436,
1439 (11th Cir. 1997). The court “may not decide the
facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment
for that of the Commissioner, ” but rather it
“must defer to the Commissioner's decision if it is
supported by substantial evidence.” Miles v.
Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the court must affirm the
Commissioner's decision “if it is supported by
substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were
applied.” Kelly v. Apfel, 185 F.3d 1211, 1213
(11th Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d
1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997)).
evidence is more than a scintilla-i.e., the evidence must do
more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a
fact, and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable
person would accept as adequate to support the
conclusion.” Jones ex rel. T.J.J. v. Astrue,
2011 WL 1706465, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May 5, 2011) (citing
Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440). The court must scrutinize
the entire record to determine the reasonableness of the
decision reached. Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1010
(11th Cir. 1987). “If the Commissioner's decision
is supported by substantial evidence, the district court will
affirm, even if the court would have reached a contrary
result as a finder of fact, and even if the court finds that
the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's
decision.” Jones, 2011 WL 1706465 at *2
(citing Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3
(11th Cir. 1991)). The court will reverse the
Commissioner's decision on plenary review if the decision
applies incorrect law, or if the decision fails to provide
the court with sufficient reasoning to determine that the
Commissioner properly applied the law. Cornelius v.
Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991);
Jones, 2011 WL 1706465 at *2 (citing Keeton v.
Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064,
1066 (11th Cir. 1994)). There is no presumption that the
Commissioner's conclusions of law are valid. Id.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show 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.
§§ 416(i) & 423(d)(1)(A). A physical or mental
impairment is “an impairment that results from
anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities
which are demonstrated by medially acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(3). Dunham bears the burden of proving that he is
disabled, and he is responsible for producing evidence to
support his claim. Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d
1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003).
of disability under the Social Security Act requires a
five-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) (2012).
Specifically, the Commissioner must determine in sequence:
(1) Is the claimant presently unemployed?
(2) Is the claimant's impairment severe?
(3) Does the claimant's impairment meet or equal one of
the specific impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1?
(4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former
(5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within