Johnson v. Saul, No. 1:2020cv00024 - Document 19 (N.D. Miss. 2020)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT affirming decision of the Commissioner. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/18/20. (jla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. Saul Doc. 19 Case: 1:20-cv-00024-JMV Doc #: 19 Filed: 11/18/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 552 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION DONALD GENE JOHNSON PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-00024-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 his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. 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 stated in Defendant’s brief and announced by the Court on the record at the conclusion of oral argument, the Court finds there is no reversible error, and the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.1 Therefore, the 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 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 v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988). As pointed out during the hearing, the RFC determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence, and there was no prejudicial legal error. The arguments presented by Plaintiff essentially call upon the Court to impermissibly reweigh the evidence. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:20-cv-00024-JMV Doc #: 19 Filed: 11/18/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 553 decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 18th day of November, 2020. /s/ Jane M. Virden U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
