United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]
JOHN
H. ENGLAND, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Donnie Kay Butts (“Butts”) 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 his application for a period of disability and
disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). (Doc. 1).
Butts timely pursued and exhausted his 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
REVERSED.
I.
Factual and Procedural History
Butts
applied for DIB under Title II of the Social Security Act,
alleging he became disabled on October 6, 2014. (Tr. 183).
After denial at the initial level of review (tr. 79-84),
Butts requested a hearing by an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) (tr. 89-90). After the hearing, the ALJ
issued a decision dated November 1, 2016, finding Butts not
disabled. (Tr. 17-29, 40-62). The Appeals Council denied
Butts request for review. (Tr. 1-3).
Butts
was sixty-years-old at the time of the ALJ’s decision,
and his past work experience includes being a plant manager
for a manufactured housing company and a food services
supervisor for a fast food franchisee. (Tr. at 28, 43). Butts
claims that he became disabled on October 6, 2014, because he
became unable to work due to knee pain after a knee
replacement surgery, left shoulder pain after a shoulder
surgery, diabetes, and lower back pain. (Tr. at 43, 213).
II.
Standard of Review[2]
The
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.
This
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).
III.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
To
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.[3] 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.
The
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
sequence:
(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 ...