Grier v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division · February 11, 2025 · No. 8:24-cv-01743-WFJ-AEP

Summary

This Report and Recommendation from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida addresses a pro se plaintiff’s request for judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The magistrate judge analyzes the Administrative Law Judge’s five-step sequential evaluation process and concludes that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and applied correct legal standards. Consequently, the court recommends affirming the Commissioner’s final decision and closing the case.

Court
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
Writing for the Court
Anthome E. Porcelli
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Decision date
February 11, 2025
Docket number
8:24-cv-01743-WFJ-AEP
Procedural posture
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).
Standard of review
Substantial evidence for factual findings; de novo review of legal conclusions.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Hassanna Tamika Grier v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

administrative lawjudicial review of agency actionada / disability

Practice areas

administrative lawdisability

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standards under the sequential evaluation process
  2. Whether the ALJ erred by continuing the sequential evaluation process after finding severe impairments at step two

Holdings

  1. The Commissioner’s decision is affirmed because it is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied.
  2. The ALJ did not err; the sequential evaluation may continue beyond step two and the ALJ’s continuation was proper.

Key quotations

If you do not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement … we will find that you are not disabled. (20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii))
“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” (631 F.3d at 1178)

Factual background

Plaintiff, born in 1977, claimed disability beginning August 7, 2015, citing mental health disorders, knee problems, and schizophrenia. The ALJ found no past relevant work and identified several severe impairments but concluded none met or equaled the listings in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ determined Plaintiff retained residual functional capacity to perform light work and therefore was not disabled.

Procedural history

The SSA denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability, DIB, and SSI. The ALJ affirmed the denial after a hearing. The Appeals Council denied review. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Middle District of Florida.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…