[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-258331-105":53,"doc-detail-258331-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","warren-lewis-v-michael-j-astrue-report-and-recommendation","WARREN LEWIS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE - REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION","","Federal court report and recommendation in a Social Security disability appeal involving Warren Lewis (Plaintiff) and Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security (Defendant). The recommendation addresses an unfavorable administrative law judge decision denying disability insurance benefits after denial of the initial and reconsideration applications. The document outlines the procedural history, standards of review grounded in substantial evidence and correct application of law, and the five-step sequential disability evaluation framework, including burdens of proof at each stage.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/warren-lewis-v-michael-j-astrue-report-and-recommendation/258331/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/warren-lewis-v-michael-j-astrue-report-and-recommendation/258331.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Dipper","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-09-13",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":35},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What was the recommended outcome for the Commissioner’s decision?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The report recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"How does the court evaluate whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"Findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, meaning more than a mere scintilla and sufficient relevant evidence for a reasonable conclusion.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What are the five steps used to evaluate a disability claim?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The ALJ must follow five steps: current work status, severity of impairments, whether impairments meet/equal a listed impairment, ability to perform past relevant work, and whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},258331,1789321256,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":35,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":20,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":47},1374404997633,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","Case 1:10-cv-00074-MP-GRJ Document 16 Filed 08/04/11 Page 1 of 14  \nPage 1 of 14  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE  \nNORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA  \nGAINESVILLE DIVISION  \nWARREN LEWIS,  \nPlaintiff,  \nv. CASE NO. 1: 10-cv-74-MMP-GRJ  \nMICHAEL J ASTRUE, Commissioner  \nof Social Security, Defendant.  \n /  \nREPORT AND RECOMMENDATION  \nPlaintiff appeals from a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying his applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. Doc. 1. The Commissioner has answered , and both parties have filed briefs outlining their respective positions. Docs. 9 , 14 , 15. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.  \nI. PROCEDURAL HISTORY  \nPlaintiff filed an application for disability benefits on April 28, 2006 , alleging a disability onset date of July 20, 2004 , due to hernias. R. 14 , 83-85. His application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. R. 14, 45-54. Following a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision on August 14, 2008, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled because he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work. R. 14-22. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. R. 1-3. This appeal followed.  \nCase 1:10-cv-00074-MP-GRJ Document 16 Filed 08/04/11 Page 2 of 14  \nPage 2 of 14  \nII. STANDARD OF REVIEW  \nThe Commissioner's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.1 Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, i.e. , the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact, and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion.2  \nWhere 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.3 The district court must view the evidence as a whole , taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision.4 However, the district court will reverse the Commissioner's decision on plenary review if the decision applies incorrect law, or if the decision fails to provide the district court with sufficient reasoning to determine that the Commissioner properly applied the law.5  \n1 See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000) .  \n2 Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 , 1560 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982) and Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 , 401 , 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971)); accord, Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d  \n580 , 584 n.3 (1 1th Cir. 1991) .  \n3 Edwards, 937 F.2d at 584 n.3 ; Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356 , 1358 (11th Cir. 1991) .  \n4 Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560; accord, Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that the court must scrutinize the entire record to determine reasonableness of factual findings); Parker v. Bowen, 793 F.2d 1177 (11th Cir. 1986)(finding that the court also must consider evidence detracting from evidence on which the Commissioner relied) .  \n5 Keeton v. Dep’t Health and Human Servs. , 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994) .  \nCase 1:10-cv-00074-MP-GRJ Document 16 Filed 08/04/11 Page 3 of 14  \nPage 3 of 14  \nThe law defines disability as the inability to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death , or has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.6 The impairment must be severe, making Plaintiff unable to do his previous work, or any other substantial gainful activity which exists in the national economy.7  \nThe ALJ must follow five steps in evaluating a cl","cbCaisaotOrcgSwR","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisaotOrcgSwR","pdf",223541,"English","# Procedural History\n# Standard of Review\n# Disability Definition and Sequential Evaluation Steps","[{\"question\":\"What was the recommended outcome for the Commissioner’s decision?\",\"answer\":\"The report recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the court evaluate whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported?\",\"answer\":\"Findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, meaning more than a mere scintilla and sufficient relevant evidence for a reasonable conclusion.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the five steps used to evaluate a disability claim?\",\"answer\":\"The ALJ must follow five steps: current work status, severity of impairments, whether impairments meet/equal a listed impairment, ability to perform past relevant work, and whether the claimant can perform other work in the national economy.\"}]","WARREN LEWIS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE - REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION | PDF"]