United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
SHELIA A. LOGAN, Plaintiff,
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
F. BIVINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Shelia A. Logan (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), seeks
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security denying her claim for period of disability,
disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security
income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq., and 1381, et
seq. On October 12, 2018, the parties consented to have
the undersigned conduct any and all proceedings in this case.
(Doc. 21). 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 November 17, 2014,
alleging disability beginning August 3, 2014, based on heart
failure, hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD),
hypothyroidism, and glaucoma. (Doc. 8 at 147-49, 164, 168).
Plaintiff's application was denied and upon timely
request, she was granted an administrative hearing before
Administrative Law Judge Thomas M. Muth II (hereinafter
“ALJ”) on August 8, 2016. (Id. at 37).
Plaintiff attended the hearing with her attorney and provided
testimony related to her claims. (Id. at 41). A
vocational expert (“VE”) also appeared at the
hearing and provided testimony. (Id. at 50). On
January 13, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision
finding that Plaintiff is not disabled. (Id. at 19).
The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review
on October 25, 2017. (Id. at 5). Therefore, the
ALJ's decision dated January 13, 2017, became the final
decision of the Commissioner.
exhausted her administrative remedies, Plaintiff timely filed
the present civil action. (Doc. 1). Oral argument was
conducted on November 27, 2018. (Doc. 25). 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).
Issues on Appeal
Whether substantial evidence supports the Residual Functional
Capacity (“RFC”) for a range of light work with
the stated restrictions?
Whether the ALJ erred in failing to resolve an apparent
conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
was born on January 28, 1963, and was fifty-three years of
age at the time of her administrative hearing on August 8,
2016. (Doc. 8 at 37, 164). Plaintiff did not graduate from
high school, but she obtained her GED. (Id. at 41).
last worked from 2008 to 2011 for Hinkle Metal and Supply
Company as a customer service/parts
representative. (Id. at 42). Prior to that, from
2001 to 2004, she performed the same type of work for
Associated Equipment Company of Delaware. (Id.).
testified that she can no longer work because she gets
fatigued, short-winded, dizzy, and has pain in her legs when
she stands or walks for more than fifteen minutes.
(Id. at 43-45). Her treating physician recommended
exercise and changing the dosage of her blood pressure
medication. (Id. at 45). Plaintiff further testified
that her blood pressure varies throughout the day, and when
it is low, it makes her feel tired and unable to concentrate.
(Id. at 45-46). Plaintiff also testified that this
occurs most days and usually lasts for about an hour.
(Id. at 46-47). According to Plaintiff, her doctor
recommended testing for peripheral artery disease in her legs
because of her leg pain, but she has been unable to have the
testing because she has no insurance. (Id. at 47).
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