Toll-Free: (888) 234-5758
Phone: (954) 523-3870
Previous Page
DISCUSSION
Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to a determination of whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. See Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997). Supporting evidence need not be preponderant to be substantial so long as it amounts to more than a scintilla. In other words, it is such relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as sufficient and adequate to support the conclusion reached. See id. at 1440. If the decision is supported by substantial competent evidence from the record as a whole, a court will not disturb that decision. Neither may a court re-weigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. See Wolfe v. Chater, 86 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 1996). See also, Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002). While the Commissioner's factual findings enjoy such deference, a court is free to review the Commissioner's legal analysis and conclusions de novo. See Ingram v. Comm'r, 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007).
This Court begins with the Plaintiff's subjective allegations of disability. With no treating source opinion on the state of the Plaintiff's medical conditions and their impact on functioning, the ALJ's analysis focused solely on whether the record evidence confirmed the Plaintiff's disability claims. The Plaintiff does not directly object to this facet of the ALJ's decision, but this Court reviews it nonetheless to the extent it serves as a predicate to the findings that are in dispute.
Under the Eleventh Circuit's Pain Standard, a claimant establishes a claim of disabling pain upon showing either objective medical evidence confirming the pain's alleged severity or an underlying medical condition, itself, of such severity that it reasonably could give rise to the alleged pain. See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). Evaluating a subjective claim of disabling pain, that is, measuring the extent of a claimant's pain under the Pain Standard, is done through the factors set out at 20 C.F.R. ยง 404.1529(c) (3). See Davis v. Astrue, 287 Fed.Appx. 748, 760-61 (11th Cir. 2008). These factors include objective medical evidence, the medical opinion evidence of treating or examining sources, and non-medical evidence such as a claimant's daily life activities and work history. An ALJ must state good cause for discounting a pain-based disability claim and hence the claimant's credibility. See Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992).
Continue to next page
Return to Case Results
Contact us for a FREE evaluation of your case
* The Law Office of LaVan & Neidenberg represents disabled people across the nation. Our firm advertises on television in: Fort Lauderdale, Miami-Dade County, Florida; Broward County, Florida; Palm Beach County, Florida; Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia; and DeKalb County, Georgia. Click here to watch a television commercial.
You want the upper-hand on your Social Security Disability claim - don't you? Then request a FREE copy of our publication Secrets Social Security Won't Tell You to learn valuable insider tips on how you can increase the chances of winning your claim. This report normally sells for $14.95 but we will send it to you at no cost if you ACT NOW!