777 Fed.Appx. 422 (11th Cir. 2019), 18-13697, Everett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
|Citation:||777 Fed.Appx. 422|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||Martha EVERETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Myron K. Allenstein, Allenstein & Allenstein, LLC, Gadsden, AL, for Plaintiff - Appellant Robert Dalton Windham, Assistant Regional Counsel, Richard Vincent Blake, Natalie K. Jemison, Depak Sathy, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Atlanta, GA, Elizabeth Holt, U.S. Att...|
|Judge Panel:||Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||June 19, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.)
Myron K. Allenstein, Allenstein & Allenstein, LLC, Gadsden, AL, for Plaintiff - Appellant
Robert Dalton Windham, Assistant Regional Counsel, Richard Vincent Blake, Natalie K. Jemison, Depak Sathy, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Atlanta, GA, Elizabeth Holt, U.S. Attorney Service - Northern District of Alabama, U.S. Attorneys Office, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00029-JEO
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Martha Everett appeals the order of the district court affirming the Social Security Administrations ("SSA") denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. On appeal, she argues that the administrative law judge ("ALJ") erred in giving partial weight to the opinion of her treating neurologist, Dr. Richard Diethelm, and discounting his opinions regarding her functional capabilities and the side effects of her medication. Everett contends that the ALJ also improperly substituted his opinion regarding Everetts functional capacity for the opinions of psychologist Dr. David Wilson, who examined her on one occasion, and social worker Dave Harvey. Finally, she argues that the ALJs decision was not supported by substantial evidence because it was based on the testimony of a vocational expert ("VE"), which was itself based on a hypothetical that did not include all of Everetts limitations.
In Social Security appeals, we review the decision of an ALJ as the Commissioners final decision when the ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals Council denies review of the ALJs decision. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the Commissioners legal conclusions de novo and consider whether the Commissioners factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam ). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP