Jones v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER - the decision of the Commissioner is Affirmed. Signed by Judge Inge P Johnson on 11/19/2012. (KAM, )
2012 Nov-19 PM 04:38
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SHIRLEY JEAN JONES,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social Security
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the provisions of Section 405(g) of
the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405, seeking judicial review of a
final adverse decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“the Commissioner”) denying her application for supplemental security income.
Plaintiff filed her application for supplemental security income benefits on
November 3, 2008, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2008 (R. 66, 106-109),
due to bursitis, depression, diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol (R. 138).
The application was denied initially, and again by an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) on May 25, 2010 (R. 21-32). The ALJ’s determination became the final
decision when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review on
February 8, 2012 (R. 1-3).
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. See Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir.
1983). 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 is hereby AFFIRMED.
DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of November 2012.
INGE PRYTZ JOHNSON
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?