Brown v. Saul

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

GREENVILLE DIVISION

MERSHELLA BROWN PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:19CV00174-JMV

ANDREW SAUL,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT

This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration regarding applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits

and supplemental security income. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the

United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to

the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court, having reviewed the record, the

administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law and having heard oral

argument, finds as follows, to-wit:

For the reasons announced by the Court on the record at the conclusion of the parties’

oral argument during a hearing held in this matter today, the Court finds there is no reversible

error, and the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.1

1 Judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is limited to two inquiries: (1) whether substantial evidence in

the record supports the Commissioner’s decision and (2) whether the decision comports with proper legal

standards. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990). “Substantial evidence is ‘such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Greenspan v.

Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct.

1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971)). “It is more than a mere scintilla, and less than a preponderance.”

Spellman v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Moore v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 901, 904 (5th Cir.

1990)). “A decision is supported by substantial evidence if ‘credible evidentiary choices or medical

findings support the decision.’” Salmond v. Berryhill, 892 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 28th day of September, 2020.

/s/ Jane M. Virden

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

omitted). The court must be careful not to “reweigh the evidence or substitute . . . [its] judgment” for that

of the ALJ, see Hollis v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1378, 1383 (5th Cir. 1988), even if it finds that the evidence

preponderates against the Commissioner's decision. Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994);

Harrell, 862 F.2d at 475.

2