777 Fed.Appx. 422 (11th Cir. 2019), 18-13697, Everett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Docket Nº:18-13697
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 422

777 Fed.Appx. 422 (11th Cir. 2019)

Martha EVERETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-13697

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

June 19, 2019

Editorial Note:

DO NOT PUBLISH.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. Attorney’s 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.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Martha Everett appeals the order of the district court affirming the Social Security Administration’s ("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 Everett’s 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 ALJ’s 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 Everett’s limitations.

I.

In Social Security appeals, we review the decision of an ALJ as the Commissioner’s final decision when the ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals Council denies review of the ALJ’s 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 reading

FREE SIGN UP