Harvill v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and costs are taxed against claimant as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 1/14/2016. (AHI)

FILED
2016 Jan-14 AM 10:08
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JASPER DIVISION
THURMAN HARVILL,
Claimant,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 6:15-CV-399-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Claimant, Thurman Harvill, commenced this action on March 8, 2015, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of the
Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and
thereby denying his claim for a period of disability, disability insurance, and
supplemental security income benefits.
The court’s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is
a narrow one. The scope of review is limited to determining whether there is
substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the
Commissioner, and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Lamb v.
Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253
(11th Cir. 1983).

Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s decision is neither supported by
substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legal standards. Specifically,
claimant asserts that the ALJ erred by failing to find that he would require the ability
to alternate between sitting and standing at will during an eight-hour work day. If the
ALJ did make such an error, it would have been significant, because the vocational
expert testified during the administrative hearing that if a hypothetical individual with
the claimant’s limitations also required a sit-stand option at work, he would be unable
to perform the jobs identified.1 The problem is that there simply is no evidence, other
than claimant’s own subjective, self-serving testimony, that claimant would require
a sit-stand option. The ALJ articulated adequate reasons, well-supported by the
administrative record, for finding claimant’s testimony to be less than fully credible,2
and claimant has not challenged the credibility finding on appeal. Absent any actual
medical evidence to support the need for a sit-stand option, the ALJ did not err by
failing to include that limitation in her residual functional capacity finding.
Consistent with the foregoing, the court concludes the ALJ’s decision was
based upon substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable legal standards.
Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Costs are taxed
against claimant. The Clerk is directed to close this file.
1

Tr. 78.

2

See Tr. 29-33.
2

DONE this 14th day of January, 2016.

______________________________
United States District Judge

3