Johnson v. Saul

Filing 19

FINAL JUDGMENT affirming decision of the Commissioner. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/18/20. (jla)

Case: 1:20-cv-00024-JMV Doc #: 19 Filed: 11/18/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 552

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION

DONALD GENE JOHNSON

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-00024-JMV

ANDREW SAUL
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration regarding his application for a period of disability and disability insurance
benefits. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate
Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. The Court, having reviewed the record, the administrative transcript, the briefs of
the parties, and the applicable law and having heard oral argument, finds as follows, to wit:
For the reasons stated in Defendant’s brief and announced by the Court on the record at
the conclusion of oral argument, the Court finds there is no reversible error, and the
Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.1 Therefore, the

1 Judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is limited to two inquiries: (1) whether substantial evidence in the record
supports the Commissioner’s decision and (2) whether the decision comports with proper legal standards. See Villa
v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994)
(quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971)). “It is more than a
mere scintilla, and less than a preponderance.” Spellman v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Moore
v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 901, 904 (5th Cir. 1990)). “A decision is supported by substantial evidence if ‘credible
evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision.’” Salmond v. Berryhill, 892 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.
2018) (citations omitted). The court must be careful not to “reweigh the evidence or substitute . . . [its] judgment”
for that of the ALJ, see Hollis v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1378, 1383 (5th Cir. 1988), even if it finds that the evidence
preponderates against the Commissioner's decision. Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994); Harrell v.
Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988). As pointed out during the hearing, the RFC determination in this case is
supported by substantial evidence, and there was no prejudicial legal error. The arguments presented by Plaintiff
essentially call upon the Court to impermissibly reweigh the evidence.

Case: 1:20-cv-00024-JMV Doc #: 19 Filed: 11/18/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 553

decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 18th day of November, 2020.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE