United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
22, 2014, Patricia Fay Anwar (“Plaintiff”) filed
an application for Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act alleging disability beginning on October 1, 2012.
application was denied at the initial administrative level.
Plaintiff then requested and received a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Following the
hearing, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, and the
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review.
The ALJ's decision consequently became the final decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”).  See Chester v. Bowen,
792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). The case is now before
the court for review of that decision under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties
have consented to the conduct of all proceedings and entry of
a final judgment by the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge. Pl.'s Consent to Jurisdiction (Doc. 9); Def.'s
Consent to Jurisdiction (Doc. 10).
on the court's review of the record and the parties'
briefs, the court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), a person is entitled to
benefits when the person is unable 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
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 
this determination, the Commissioner employs a five-step,
sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2011).
(1) Is the person presently unemployed?
(2) Is the person's impairment severe?
(3) Does the person's impairment meet or equal one of the
specific impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt.
P, App. 1 [the Listing of Impairments]?
(4) Is the person unable to perform his or her former
(5) Is the person unable to perform any other work within the
economy? 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.” McDaniel v. Bowen, 800
F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986). 
burden of proof rests on the claimant through Step Four.
See Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237-39
(11th Cir. 2004). A claimant establishes a prima
facie case of qualifying disability once he or she has
carried the burden of proof from Step One through Step Four.
At Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner, who must
then show that there are a significant number of jobs in the
national economy that the claimant can perform. Id.
perform the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ must determine
the claimant's Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”). Id. at 1238-39. The RFC is what
the claimant is still able to do despite the claimant's
impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other
evidence. Id. It may contain both exertional and
nonexertional limitations. Id. at 1242-43. At the
fifth step, the ALJ considers the claimant's RFC, age,
education, and work experience to determine if there are jobs
available in the national economy that the claimant can
perform. Id. at 1239. To do this, the ALJ can use
either the Medical Vocational Guidelines
(“grids”), see 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt.
P, app. 2, or call a vocational expert (“VE”).
Id. at 1239-40.
grids allow the ALJ to consider factors such as age,
confinement to sedentary or light work, inability to speak
English, educational deficiencies, and lack of job
experience. Each factor can independently limit the number of
jobs realistically available to an individual.
Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240. Combinations of these