Coleman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Inge P Johnson on 4/19/12. (ASL)
2012 Apr-19 PM 03:12
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ASHA KAY COLEMAN,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
This matter is before the court on the record and briefs of the paties. This
court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405. The plaintiff is seeking
reversal or remand of the final decision of the Commissioner. All administrative
remedies have been exhausted.
Plaintiff filed her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income on July 20, 2007, alleging a disability onset of
April 5, 2003,1 due to problems from blurred vision, high blood pressure,
problems with digestive and reproductive systems, degenerative disc disease, hole
in heart, and strokes with numbness in left arm. (R. 37, 127) The applications
were denied initially. The Administrative Law Judge issued a partially favorable
Plaintiff now argues that she was disabled on any date from June 10, 2007, forward to
March 31, 2008, and then to the current date. Plaintiff’s memorandum (doc. 11) at 14.
decision dated March 31, 2010, finding that plaintiff was not disabled prior to
October 2, 2008, but became disabled on October 2, 2008. (R. 11-26) The ALJ’s
determination became the final decision when the Appeals Council denied
plaintiff’s request for review. (R. 1-3)
The court’s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act
is a narrow one. The scope of its review is limited to determining: 1) whether
there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the
Commissioner, and 2) whether the correct legal standards were applied. See
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 843
(1971); Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988). The court may not
decide facts, reweigh evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the
Commissioner. See Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983).
However, this limited scope does not render affirmance automatic,
for “despite [this] deferential standard for review of claims ... [the]
court must scrutinize [the] record in its entirety to determine the
reasonableness of the decision reached.” Bridges v. Bowen, 815 F.2d
622 (11th Cir. 1987).
Lamb, 847 F.2d at 701. Moreover, failure to apply the correct legal standards is
grounds for reversal. See Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629, 634 (11th Cir. 1984).
Based upon the court’s evaluation of the evidence submitted to and adduced
at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge and considered by him and the
Appeals Council, the court is satisfied that the decision of the Administrative Law
Judge is based upon substantial evidence and that the Administrative Law Judge
applied the correct legal standard to each issue presented. Accordingly, the
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration will be
affirmed by separate order.
DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April 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?