United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northwestern Division
K. KALLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Roberts brings this action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the
Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), seeking review of the final adverse decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”). This court finds that the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) applied the correct legal
standards and that her decision - which has become the
decision of the Commissioner - is supported by substantial
evidence. Therefore, the court AFFIRMS the decision denying
filed an application for Title II child's disability
insurance benefits on October 20, 2008, alleging a disability
onset date of May 12, 1985 due to vision problems and asthma.
(R. 196). The SSA determined Roberts to be disabled beginning
January 1, 2006, and awarded him benefits. (R. 83). On May
14, 2013, the SSA conducted a continuing disability review,
and determined that Roberts was no longer disabled. (R.
84-90, 98-103). Roberts requested reconsideration, but the
SSA again found that Roberts was “not disabled.”
(R. 104-09, 142). Roberts subsequently requested a hearing
before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), (R.
145), who also denied Roberts's claim, (R. 15-26). The
Appeals Council denied review, (R. 1-7), rendering the
ALJ's opinion the final decision of the Commissioner.
Roberts then filed this action pursuant to § 405(g).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
only issues before this court are whether the record contains
substantial evidence to sustain the ALJ's decision,
see § 405(g); Walden v. Schweiker, 672
F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982), and whether the ALJ applied
the correct legal standards, see Lamb v. Bowen, 847
F.2d 698, 791 (11th Cir. 1988); Chester v. Bowen,
792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g) and 1383(c) mandate that the Commissioner's
“factual findings are conclusive if supported by
‘substantial evidence.'” Martin v.
Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). The
district court may not reconsider the facts, reevaluate the
evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the
Commissioner; instead, it must review the final decision as a
whole and determine if the decision is “reasonable and
supported by substantial evidence.” See Id.
(citing Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239
(11th Cir. 1983)).
evidence falls somewhere between a scintilla and a
preponderance of evidence; “[i]t is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Martin, 894 F.2d at
1529 (quoting Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239) (other
citations omitted). If supported by substantial evidence, the
court must affirm the Commissioner's factual findings
even if the preponderance of the evidence is against the
Commissioner's findings. See Martin, 894 F.2d at
1529. While the court acknowledges that judicial review of
the ALJ's findings is limited in scope, it notes that the
review “does not yield automatic affirmance.”
Lamb, 847 F.2d at 701.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
U.S.C. § 432(f) governs the termination of benefits, and
provides that a recipient of benefits
may be determined not to be entitled to such benefits on the
basis of a finding that the physical or mental impairment on
the basis of which such benefits are provided has ceased,
does not exist, or is not disabling only if such finding is
supported by -
(1) substantial evidence which demonstrates that -
(A) there has been any medical improvement in the
individual's impairment or combination of impairments
(other than medical improvement which is not related to the
individual's ability to work), and
(B) the individual is now able to engage in substantial