Lane v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge J Foy Guin, Jr on 7/10/12. (CTS, )

FILED
2012 Jul-10 PM 03:21
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
CAMERON D. LANE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-G-3241-NE
)
)
)
)
)

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff, Cameron D. Lane, 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 April 17, 2008. 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

Specifically, the ALJ found that the plaintiff was less than credible regarding his
allegations of disabling pain:
It is also noted that the claimant testified that he takes Lortab, but stated in
the Disability Report he completed that he does not have a prescription for
it. The record shows no treatment for back pain since July 2003 and no
treatment for shoulder pain since August 2007. The record shows no
medical treatment whatsoever since August 2007, except fo the examination
by Dr. Carnel pursuant to his application. The claimant’s representative
stated in the Response to the Prehearing Order that the record is complete to
his knowledge. (Exhibit 12E) This lack of treatment is clearly inconsistent
with the claimant’s allegations of disabling back and shoulder pain. He also
testified that the has no automobile insurance and his driver’s license has
been suspended, yet he stated in the “Function Report” submitted in
conjunction with his application that he does drive. (Exhibit 4E) The
claimant also stated at the hearing that he could perform the job of a gate
guard if he could find that job.
[R. 23-24](emphasis added)
2

A separate order in conformity with this memorandum opinion will be
entered.
DONE and ORDERED 10 July 2012.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
J. FOY GUIN, JR.

3