Lovelady v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge J Foy Guin, Jr on 5/9/12. (CTS, )
2012 May-09 AM 10:43
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EXIE SMITH LOVELADY,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-G-2635-S
The plaintiff, Exie Smith Lovelady, brings this action seeking judicial
review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (the Commissioner) denying her application for Social Security Benefits.
The plaintiff filed an application for Social Security Benefits on November 7, 2007.
Thereafter, plaintiff timely pursued and exhausted the administrative remedies available
before the Commissioner. Accordingly, this case is now ripe for judicial review pursuant
to the provisions of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C.
The sole 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. Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983). To that
end this court “must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached
is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Bloodsworth, at 1239 (citations
omitted). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Bloodsworth, at 1239. The court has
carefully reviewed the entire record in this case and is of the opinion that the
Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and that proper legal
standards were applied in reaching that decision. Accordingly, the decision of the
Commissioner must be affirmed.
A separate order in conformity with this memorandum opinion will be
DONE and ORDERED 9 May 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
J. FOY GUIN, JR.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?