United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
H. ENGLAND, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cindy Ann Gamble ("Gamble") seeks review, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), § 205(g) of the Social
Security Act, of a final decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"),
denying her application for disability insurance benefits
("DIB") and social security income ("SSL).
(Doc. 1). Gamble timely pursued and exhausted her
administrative remedies. This case is therefore ripe for
review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The
undersigned has carefully considered the record and, for the
reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is
Factual and Procedural History
prospectively filed her application for DIB and SSI on June
4, 2013, alleging she became unable to work beginning
December 1, 2009, later amended to November 1, 2011. (Tr.
165-77). Gamble was forty-five years old on her alleged on
set date and fifty years old when the ALJ rendered his
decision. (Tr. 42, 225-26, 250). Gamble has a high school
education and past relevant work as a cashier, newspaper
deliverer, and home health aide. (Tr. 42, 225-26, 250). The
Agency initially denied Gamble's application, and Gamble
requested a hearing where she appeared. (Tr. 35-58, 63-98,
104-112). After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") denied Gamble's claim on January 20,
2015. (Tr. 11-29, 37-57). Gamble sought review by the Appeals
Council, but it declined her request on April 27, 2016. (Tr.
1-6). On that date, the ALJ's decision became the final
decision of the Commissioner. On June 24, 2016, Gamble
initiated this action. (See doc. 1).
Standard of Review 
court's review of the Commissioner's decision is
narrowly circumscribed. The function of this Court is to
determine whether the decision of the Commissioner is
supported by substantial evidence and whether proper legal
standards were applied. Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 390 (1971); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d
1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002). This Court must "scrutinize
the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is
reasonable and supported by substantial evidence."
Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th
Cir. 1983). Substantial evidence is "such relevant
evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion." Id. It is "more
than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance."
Court must uphold factual findings supported by substantial
evidence. "Substantial evidence may even exist contrary
to the findings of the ALJ, and [the reviewing court] may
have taken a different view of it as a factfinder. Yet, if
there is substantially supportive evidence, the findings
cannot be overturned." Barron v. Sullivan, 924
F.2d 227, 230 (11th Cir. 1991). However, the Court reviews
the ALJ's legal conclusions de novo because no
presumption of validity attaches to the ALJ's
determination of the proper legal standards to be applied.
Davis v. Shalala, 985 F.2d 528, 531 (11th Cir.
1993). If the court finds an error in the ALJ's
application of the law, or if the ALJ fails to provide the
court with sufficient reasoning for determining the proper
legal analysis has been conducted, it must reverse the
ALJ's decision. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d
1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991).
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
qualify for disability benefits and establish his or her
entitlement for a period of disability, a claimant must be
disabled as defined by the Social Security Act and the
Regulations promulgated thereunder. The Regulations define
"disabled" as "the inability to do 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
twelve (12) months." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a). To
establish entitlement to disability benefits, a claimant must
provide evidence of a "physical or mental
impairment" which "must result from anatomical,
physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be
shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508.
Regulations provide a five-step process for determining
whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The Commissioner must determine in
(1) whether the claimant is currently employed;
(2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment;
(3) whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals an
impairment listed by the [Commissioner];
(4) whether the claimant can perform his or her past work;
(5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work in
the national economy.
Pope v. Shalala, 998 F.2d 473, 477 (7th Cir. 1993)
(citing to the formerly applicable C.F.R. section),
overruled on other grounds by Johnson v. Apfel, 189
F.3d 561, 562-63 (7th Cir. 1999); accordMcDanieI v.
Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986). "Once
the claimant has satisfied steps One and Two, she will
automatically be found disabled if she suffers from a listed
impairment. If the claimant does not have a listed impairment
but cannot perform her work, the burden shifts to the
[Commissioner] to show that the claimant can perform some
other job." Pope, 998 F.2d at 477;
accordFoote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir.
1995). The Commissioner must further show such work exists in
the national economy in significant numbers. Id.
Findings of the ...