United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
CRYSTAL R. HARRIS, Plaintiff,
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
F. BIVINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Crystal R. Harris (hereinafter “Plaintiff”),
seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security denying her claim for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. On October 12,
2018, the parties consented to have the undersigned conduct
any and all proceedings in this case. (Doc. 23). Thus, the
action was referred to the undersigned to conduct all
proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 73. Upon careful consideration of the
administrative record and the memoranda of the parties, it is
hereby ORDERED that the decision of the
Commissioner be AFFIRMED.
Procedural History 
filed her application for benefits on October 21, 2014,
alleging disability beginning May 23, 2009, based on
hidradenitis suppurativa (sometimes referred to as
“HS”), depression, obsessive compulsive disorder,
and asthma. (Doc. 12 at 191, 207, 211). Plaintiff's
application was denied and upon timely request, she was
granted an administrative hearing before Administrative Law
Judge Robert Waller (hereinafter “ALJ”) on July
27, 2016. (Id. at 53). Plaintiff attended the
hearing with her attorney and provided testimony related to
her claims. (Id. at 58). A vocational expert
(“VE”) also appeared at the hearing and provided
testimony. (Id. at 81). On October 13, 2016, the ALJ
issued an unfavorable decision finding that Plaintiff is not
disabled. (Id. at 24). The Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's request for review on August 30, 2017.
(Id. at 5). Therefore, the ALJ's decision dated
October 13, 2016, became the final decision of the
exhausted her administrative remedies, Plaintiff timely filed
the present civil action. (Doc. 1). Oral argument was
conducted on November 19, 2018. (Doc. 30). This case is now
ripe for judicial review and is properly before this Court
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).
Issue on Appeal
Whether the ALJ reversibly erred in failing to find that
Plaintiff's impairments met Listing 8.06?
was born on November 25, 1981, and was thirty-four years of
age at the time of her administrative hearing on July 27,
2016. (Doc. 12 at 53, 207). Plaintiff quit school in the
sixth grade because of problems with hidradenitis
suppurativa,  and she did not obtain her GED.
(Id. at 59).
last worked in 2015 as a cleaner at a bank. (Id. at
60). Prior to that she worked retail and as a stocker in 2009
for JC Penney, in 2006 for Walmart, and in 2003 for
Winn-Dixie. (Id. at 59, 223).
testified that she can no longer work because she is having
problems with her legs and pain from flareups from HS.
(Id. at 61). When she has a flareup, she is unable
to bend, stand, or walk for very long because of drainage and
pain and sometimes must stay in the bed for several days.
(Id. at 65-66, 72). She takes medication that helps
temporarily (antibiotic creams, antibiotics, steroids, and
pain medication), but it is an incurable, chronic condition
that recurs. (Id. at 66, 68-69, 79).
Standard of Review
reviewing claims brought under the Act, this Court's role
is a limited one. The Court's review is limited to
determining 1) whether the decision of the Secretary is
supported by substantial evidence and 2) whether the correct
legal standards were applied.Martin v. Sullivan, 894
F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). A court may not decide the
facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment
for that of the Commissioner. Sewell v. Bowen, 792
F.2d 1065, 1067 (11th Cir. 1986). The Commissioner's
findings of fact must be affirmed if they are based upon
substantial evidence. Brown v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d
1233, 1235 (11th Cir. 1991); Bloodsworth v. Heckler,
703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding substantial
evidence is defined as “more than a scintilla, but less
than a preponderance” and consists of “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.”). In determining
whether substantial evidence exists, a court must view the
record as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable, as
well as unfavorable, to the Commissioner's decision.
Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir.
1986); Short v. Apfel, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10163,
*4 (S.D. Ala. June 14, 1999).
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
individual who applies for Social Security disability
benefits must prove his or her disability. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1512, 416.912. Disability 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 also 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a). The Social Security