Keith v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge J Foy Guin, Jr on 5/21/12. (CTS, )

FILED
2012 May-21 AM 09:04
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
BRIAN WILLIAM KEITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-G-3061-M
)
)
)
)
)

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff, Brian William Keith, brings this action seeking judicial
review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (the Commissioner) denying his application for Social Security Benefits.
The plaintiff filed an application for Social Security Benefits on September 13, 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.
§ 405(g).
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.1 Accordingly, the decision of the
Commissioner must be affirmed.

1

In his brief, the plaintiff states that Hisham Hakim, M.D., the consultative
neurological examiner, completed a Medical Source Statement that the plaintiff could “sit
fours [sic] and be on his feet three hours in an eight-hour day (thus, seemingly unable to
complete a full eight-hour work day).” [Pl.’s brief at 6, 8]. Dr. Hakim actually said that
the plaintiff could sit for four hours total (three hours at one time), stand three hours (two
hours at one time), and walk three hours (two hours at one time). [R. 321]. This certainly
exceeds an eight-hour workday. Moreover, in his brief, the plaintiff fails to address his
noncompliance with treatment. Treating physician Yoyen A. Lau, D.O., on February 2,
2008, noted, “His [blood sugars] are out of control because of his non-compliance. [He
says he] cannot afford the [medicine], even though I have given him all the meds he
should be taking.” [R. 293]. On February 17, 2009, Dr. Yau wrote, “His [blood sugars]
are not controlled but pt is very noncompliant. He does not care if [he] runs out of
insulin.” [R. 297]. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility finding as well as
his finding that the plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary
work.

2

A separate order in conformity with this memorandum opinion will be
entered.
DONE and ORDERED 21 May 2012.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
J. FOY GUIN, JR.

3