United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
K. KALLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Gaddison brings this action pursuant to Section 405(g) of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review
of the Administrative Law Judge's denial of disability
insurance benefits, which has become the final decision of
the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”). For the reasons explained below, the
court affirms the decision.
filed her application for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) on July 24, 2014 asserting that she
suffered from a disability beginning on March 1, 2013, which
she later amended to June 27, 2014, due to bipolar disorder.
R. 19, 24, 98, 167. After the SSA denied her application,
Gaddison requested a formal hearing before an ALJ. R. 95,
107, 118. Ultimately, the ALJ issued a decision finding that
Gaddison was not disabled. R. 37. The Appeals Council
affirmed, rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision
of the Commissioner. R. 1. Gaddison was 17 years old on the
date of her application and 18 years old on the date of the
Commissioner's final decision. R. 19, 178. Gaddison filed
this action pursuant to § 405(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). Doc. 13.
Standard of Review
federal district courts review the SSA's findings of fact
under the “substantial evidence” standard of
review. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c); 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
Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529 (citing Bloodsworth v.
Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)).
Substantial 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.” Id. (internal citations
omitted). If supported by substantial evidence, the court
must affirm the Commissioner's factual findings, even if
the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner.
determinations are the province of the ALJ. Moore v.
Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005). However,
“[t]he testimony of a treating physician must
ordinarily be given substantial or considerable weight unless
good cause is shown to the contrary, ” and the failure
of the Secretary “to specify what weight is given to a
treating physician's opinion and any reason for giving it
no weight” constitutes reversible error. MacGregor
v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986). Courts
have found good cause to discount a treating physician's
report when it is “not accompanied by objective medical
evidence, . . . wholly conclusory, ” or
“inconsistent with [the physician's] own medical
records.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436,
1440 (11th Cir. 1997); Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d
580, 583 (11th Cir. 1991). In contrast to the opinion of a
treating physician, “the opinion of a nonexamining
physician is entitled to little weight if it is contrary to
the opinion of the claimant's treating physician.”
Broughton v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 960, 962 (11th Cir.
federal courts review the SSA's conclusions of law de
novo, see Bridges v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 622, 624 (11th
Cir.1987), and “[f]ailure to apply the correct legal
standards is grounds not for remand but, for reversal.”
Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).
No. presumption attaches to either the ALJ's choice of
legal standard or to the ALJ's application of the correct
legal standard to the facts. Id.
reviewing courts have the power “to enter, upon the
pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming,
modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added).
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
individual applying for DIB bears the burden of proving that
she is disabled. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. To
qualify, a claimant must show “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
twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and
416(i)(I)(A). A physical or mental impairment is “an
impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or
psychological abnormalities which are demonstrated by
medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic
techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3).
applicants who have attained age 18, determination of
disability under the Act requires a five step analysis. See
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.
Specifically, the Commissioner must determine, in sequence:
(1) whether the claimant is doing substantial gainful
(2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment;
(3) whether the impairment meets or is medically equivalent
to one listed by the Secretary;
(4) whether the claimant is unable to perform his or her past
(5) whether the claimant is unable to perform any work in the
national economy, based on his residual functional capacity.
McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir.
1986). “An affirmative answer to any of the above
questions leads either to the next question, or, on steps
three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer
to any question, other than step three, leads to a
determination of ‘not disabled.'”
Id. at 1030 (citing 20 C.F.R. §
416.920(a)-(f)). “Once a finding is made that a
claimant cannot return to prior work, the burden shifts to
the Secretary to show other work the claimant can do.”
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir. 1995)
applicants under age 18, determination of disability under
the Act requires a three step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §
416.924(a). Specifically, the Commissioner must determine in
(1) whether the claimant is working;
(2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; and
(3) whether the impairment meets or equals one listed by the
Parks ex rel. D.P. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,
783 F.3d 847, 850 (11th Cir. 2015). In determining whether an
impairment equals a severe impairment, the ALJ must assess
the claimant on six domains:
(1) acquiring and using information;
(2) attending and completing tasks;
(3) interacting and relating with ...