United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
C. RICHARDSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's appeal of an
administrative decision denying her application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Plaintiff
claims her disability began on January 1, 2012. (Tr. 116.) A
hearing was held before the assigned Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) on March 31, 2014, at which Plaintiff was
represented by a non-attorney representative. (Tr. 25-55.)
The ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled since June 13, 2012, the
date of her SSI application. (Tr. 10-19.) In reaching the
decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a reduced
range of light work. (Tr. 13-14.)
appeals the Commissioner's decision that she was not
disabled since June 13, 2012. Plaintiff has exhausted her
available administrative remedies and the case is properly
before the Court. The undersigned has reviewed the record,
the briefs, and the applicable law. For the reasons stated
herein, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
scope of this Court's review is limited to determining
whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards,
McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir.
1988), and whether the Commissioner's findings are
supported by substantial evidence, Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). “Substantial
evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). Where
the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial
evidence, the district court will affirm, even if the
reviewer would have reached a contrary result as finder of
fact, and even if the reviewer finds that the evidence
preponderates against the Commissioner's decision.
Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th
Cir. 1991); Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356, 1358
(11th Cir. 1991). The district court must view the evidence
as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as
unfavorable to the decision. Foote v. Chater, 67
F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995); accord Lowery v.
Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating
the court must scrutinize the entire record to determine the
reasonableness of the Commissioner's factual findings).
claimant seeks to establish disability through her own
testimony of pain or other subjective symptoms, the Eleventh
Circuit's three-part “pain standard” applies.
Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir.
1991) (per curiam). “If the ALJ decides not to credit
such testimony, he must articulate explicit and adequate
reasons for doing so.” Id.
The pain standard requires (1) evidence of an underlying
medical condition and either (2) objective medical evidence
that confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from
that condition or (3) that the objectively determined medical
condition is of such a severity that it can be reasonably
expected to give rise to the alleged pain.
claimant establishes that her “pain is disabling
through objective medical evidence that an underlying medical
condition exists that could reasonably be expected to produce
the pain, ” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.929,
“all evidence about the intensity, persistence, and
functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms must
be considered in addition to the medical signs and laboratory
findings in deciding the issue of disability.”
Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561; see also SSR 96-7p
(stating that after the ALJ finds a medically determinable
impairment exists, the ALJ must analyze “the intensity,
persistence, and limiting effects of the individual's
symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit
the individual's ability to do basic work
claimant's “statements about the intensity,
persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or
other symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical
evidence, ” the ALJ “must make a finding on the
credibility of the individual's statements based on a
consideration of the entire case record.” SSR 96-7p.
When evaluating the credibility of an individual's
statements, the adjudicator must consider the entire case
record and give specific reasons for the weight given to the
individual's statements. . . . The reasons for the
credibility finding must be grounded in the evidence and
articulated in the determination or decision. It is not
sufficient to make a conclusory statement that “the
individual's allegations have been considered” or
that “the allegations are (or are not) credible.”
It is also not enough for the adjudicator simply to recite
the factors that are described in the regulations for
evaluating symptoms. The determination or decision must contain
specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by
the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently
specific to make clear to the individual and to any
subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the
individual's statements and the reasons for that weight.
determinations are the province of the ALJ, ” Moore
v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005), and
“[a] clearly articulated credibility finding with
substantial supporting evidence in the record will not be
disturbed by a reviewing court, ” Foote, 67
F.3d at 1562.