Hodge v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 1/15/13. (CTS, )
2013 Jan-15 PM 12:45
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JAMES A. HODGE,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-3972-SLB
The plaintiff, James A. Hodge, 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. James A. Hodge
filed an application for Social Security Benefits. 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. Accordingly, the decision of the
Commissioner must be affirmed.
A separate order in conformity with this memorandum opinion will be
DONE, this 15th day of January, 2013.
SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
CHIEF UNITED STATES 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?