United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
H. ENGLAND, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Tannys Williams (“Williams”) 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
supplemental security income (“SSI”). (Doc. 1).
Williams 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
November 24, 2014, Williams protectively filed an application
for SSI, alleging disability beginning November 30, 2013.
(Tr. 176-181). The claim was denied initially on January 27,
2015. (Tr. 103-106). Thereafter, Williams filed a written
request for hearing on March 3, 2015. (Tr. 111-113). Williams
appeared and testified at a hearing on February 2, 2016. (Tr.
25- 86). On April 20, 2016, the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) found Williams had not been under a
disability and denied Williams' claim. (Tr. 18-19).
Williams sought review by the Appeals Council, but it
declined her request on April 14, 2017. (Tr. 1-5). On that
date, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner. On June 6, 2017, Williams initiated this
action. (See doc. 1).
was twenty-three-years-old on the alleged onset date, and
twenty-five-years-old when she testified before the ALJ. (Tr.
32, 176, 204). Williams has a high school education and past
relevant work as a cleaner. (Tr. 18, 203, 205).
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.” Id.
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 ...