Alleyne v. Berryhill

          ORDER

          SONJA F. BIVINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Nubyl A. Alleyne (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for a 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 19, 2018, the parties consented to have the undersigned conduct any and all proceedings in this case. (Doc. 20). 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.

         I. Procedural History^[1]

         Plaintiff filed her applications for benefits on February 24, 2015, alleging disability beginning November 20, 2014, based on spinal disease in lower back, nerve damage in left leg, and high blood pressure. (Doc. 12 at 200, 222, 226). Plaintiff's application was denied and upon timely request, she was granted an administrative hearing before Administrative Law Judge L. Dawn Pischek (hereinafter “ALJ”) on February 10, 2016. (Id. at 65). Plaintiff attended the hearing with her attorney and provided testimony related to her claims. (Id. at 68). A vocational expert (“VE”) also appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. (Id. at 77). On August 19, 2016, the ALJ conducted a supplemental hearing. (Id. at 49). Plaintiff again attended the hearing with her attorney and provided testimony related to her claims. (Id. at 52). A vocational expert (“VE”) also appeared at the supplemental hearing and provided testimony. (Id. at 60-61). On December 16, 2016, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision finding that Plaintiff is not disabled. (Id. at 25). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on August 30, 2017. (Id. at 5). Therefore, the ALJ's decision dated December 16, 2016, became the final decision of the Commissioner.

         Having exhausted her administrative remedies, Plaintiff timely filed the present civil action. (Doc. 1). Oral argument was conducted on November 8, 2018. (Doc. 23). 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).

         II. Issue on Appeal

         Whether substantial evidence supports the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) for a range of sedentary work with the stated restrictions?

         III. Factual Background

         Plaintiff was born on December 2, 1975, and was forty years of age at the time of her administrative hearing on February 10, 2016. (Doc. 12 at 65, 222). Plaintiff graduated from high school and completed two years of college. (Id. at 69). Plaintiff last worked from 1998 to 2010 as a Certified Nursing Assistant for a hospital and home health service. (Id. at 69, 227, 241).

         Plaintiff testified that she can no longer work because of back and left leg pain and that she is unable to bend or lift. (Id. at 69-71). Plaintiff testified that, at times, she needs a walker to make sure that she does not trip. (Id. at 70-74). She also takes pain medication but continues to have pain and side effects, such as headaches and disorientation. (Id. at 55, 57, 72).

         IV. Standard of Review

         In 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.^[2]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).

         V. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

         An 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 ...