Williams v. Saul

• Decision Date: 13 November 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00412-N
• Parties: DAVID L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

DAVID L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00412-N

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

November 13, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff David L. Williams brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying his application for supplemental security income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.¹ Upon due consideration of the parties' briefs (Docs. 18, 19) and those portions of the administrative record (Doc. 15) relevant to the issues raised, and with the benefit of oral argument, the Court finds that the Commissioner's final decision is due to be AFFIRMED.²

I. Procedural Background

This is the second time Williams has sought judicial review with this Courton denial of his subject application for SSI, which he filed with the Social Security Administration ("SSA") on April 5, 2011. (Doc. 15, PageID.79). After the Commissioner issued his first unfavorable final decision denying Williams's application, Williams sought judicial review of that decision with this Court in Williams v. Colvin, S.D. Ala. Case No. 1:14-cv-00351 (hereinafter, "Williams I"). On June 16, 2015, the Court reversed and remanded the Commissioner's first unfavorable final decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).³ See (Doc. 15, PageID.540-567); (1:14-cv-00351 Docs. 22, 23); Williams v. Colvin, No. CIV.A. 14-00351-B, 2015 WL 3751400 (S.D. Ala. June 16, 2015) (Bivins, M.J.).⁴ Following remand to the Commissioner, on January 14, 2016, the Appeals Council for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review vacated the first unfavorable final decision and remanded the case for further proceedings before an SSA Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (See Doc. 15, PageID.568-571).

On remand from the Appeals Council, a hearing was held before the ALJ onFebruary 15, 2017. On March 8, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on Williams's application, finding him not disabled under the Social Security Act and therefore not entitled to benefits. (See Doc. 15, PageID.443-458). The Commissioner's decision on Williams's application again became final when the Appeals Council declined to assume jurisdiction over the ALJ's unfavorable decision on May 22, 2019. See (id., PageID.415-419); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484(a) ("In accordance with § 416.1483, when a case is remanded by a Federal court for further consideration, the decision of the administrative law judge will become the final decision of the Commissioner after remand on your case unless the Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction of the case."). Williams subsequently brought this action under § 1383(c)(3) for judicial review of the Commissioner's second final decision.

II. Standards of Review

"In Social Security appeals, [the Court] must determine whether the Commissioner's decision is ' "supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." ' " Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997))). "[T]he threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high." Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154, 203 L. Ed. 2d 504 (2019). In reviewing the Commissioner's factual findings, the Court " 'may not decide the facts anew,reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].' " Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983))). " 'Even if the evidence preponderates against the [Commissioner]'s factual findings, [the Court] must affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.' " Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)).

Put another way, "[u]nder the substantial evidence standard, we cannot look at the evidence presented to [an administrative agency] to determine if interpretations of the evidence other than that made by the [agency] are possible. Rather, we review the evidence that was presented to determine if the findings made by the [agency] were unreasonable. To that end, [judicial] inquiry is highly deferential and we consider only whether there is substantial evidence for the findings made by the [agency], not whether there is substantial evidence for some other finding that could have been, but was not, made. That is, even if the evidence could support multiple conclusions, we must affirm the agency's decision unless there is no reasonable basis for that decision." Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1029 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (citations and quotation omitted).⁵

"Yet, within this narrowly circumscribed role, [courts] do not act as automatons. [A court] must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence[.]" Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239 (citations and quotation omitted). See also Owens v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) ("We are neither to conduct a de novo proceeding, nor to rubber stamp the administrative decisions that come before us. Rather, our function is to ensure that the decision was based on a reasonable and consistently applied standard, and was carefully considered in light of all the relevant facts."). "In determining whether substantial evidence exists, [a court] must...tak[e] into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the [Commissioner's] decision." Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). If a court determines that the Commissioner reached his decision by focusing upon one aspect of the evidence and ignoring other parts of the record[, i]n such circumstances [the court] cannot properly find that the administrative decision issupported by substantial evidence. It is not enough to discover a piece of evidence which supports that decision, but to disregard other contrary evidence." McCruter v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544, 1548 (11th Cir. 1986). Nevertheless, " 'there is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision, so long as the ALJ's decision ... is not a broad rejection which is not enough to enable [a reviewing court] to conclude that the ALJ considered [the claimant's] medical condition as a whole.' " Mitchell v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quotation and brackets omitted)).⁶

The "substantial evidence" "standard of review applies only to findings of fact. No similar presumption of validity attaches to the [Commissioner]'s conclusions of law, including determination of the proper standards to be applied in reviewing claims." MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986) (quotation omitted). Accord, e.g., Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387, 1389 (11th Cir. 1982) ("Our standard of review for appeals from the administrative denials of Social Security benefits dictates that '(t)he findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive ....' 42 U.S.C.A. s 405(g) ... As is plain from the statutory language, this deferential standard of review is applicable only to findings of fact made by the Secretary, and it is well established that no similar presumption of validity attaches to the Secretary's conclusions of law, including determination of the proper standards to be applied in reviewingclaims." (some quotation marks omitted)). This Court "conduct[s] 'an exacting examination' of these factors." Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (quoting Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)). " 'The [Commissioner]'s failure to apply the correct law or to provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis has been conducted mandates reversal.' " Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991)). Accord Keeton v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994).

In sum, courts "review the Commissioner's factual findings with deference and the Commissioner's legal conclusions with close scrutiny." Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). See also Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("In Social Security appeals, we review de novo the legal principles upon which the Commissioner's decision is based. Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). However, we review the resulting decision only to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir. 2004)."). It is also important to note that a court cannot "affirm simply because some rationale might have supported the [Commissioner]' conclusion[,]" as "[s]uch an approach would not advance the ends of reasoned decision making." Owens, 748 F.2d at 1516. Rather, "an agency's order must be upheld, if at all, on the same basis articulated in the order by the agency itself." Fed. Power Comm'n v. Texaco Inc., 417 U.S. 380, 397, 94 S. Ct. 2315, 41 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1974) (quotation omitted). See also Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455(5th Cir. 2000) ("The ALJ's decision must stand or fall with the reasons set forth in the ALJ's decision, as adopted by the Appeals Council."); Nance v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Com...