[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 9, 2009
No. 08-15999 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-01043-CV-J-HTS
DIANE PARRISH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 9, 2009)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Diane Parrish appeals from the district court’s order, affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) termination
of her disability insurance benefits (“DIB”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423. The
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) initially determined that Parrish was disabled in
1991. Following a periodic reexamination of Parrish’s condition, the
Commissioner found that, on August 1, 1995, Parrish had medically improved and
her residual functional capacity (“RFC”) had increased. Accordingly, it terminated
her DIB as of that date. Subsequent to that finding of medical improvement, this
case has been remanded by the district court on two occasions. Following each
remand, the ALJ again found that Parrish had medically improved and her
disability had ceased as of August 1, 1995.
On appeal, Parrish argues that the ALJ improperly disregarded evidence that
(1) in 1990, she received state workers’ compensation benefits for her disability,
and (2) the symptoms that a doctor found that she was suffering in 2002 were
essentially the same as those for which she originally was granted DIB, limiting
her ability to work to four hours per day.
“We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine if it is supported by
substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards.” Lewis v. Callahan,
125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). “Substantial evidence is defined as more
than a scintilla, i.e., evidence that must do more than create a suspicion of the
2
existence of the fact to be established, and such relevant evidence as a reasonable
person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion.” Foote v. Chater, 67
F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted).
A claimant’s continued entitlement to disability benefits must be reviewed
periodically. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(a). Generally, the Commissioner must
determine if there has been any medical improvement in the person’s impairments
and, if so, whether the medical improvement is related to the person’s ability to
work. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(c) (discussing the Commissioner’s
determination of medical improvement and its relationship to a claimant’s abilities
to do work). Medical improvement is any decrease in the medical severity of a
claimant’s impairment that was present at the most recent finding of disability. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1594(b)(1). We have held that “there can be no termination of
benefits unless there is substantial evidence of improvement to the point of no
disability.” McAulay v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 1500, 1500 (11th Cir. 1985) (per
curiam). In making such a determination, “a comparison of the original medical
evidence and the new medical evidence is necessary to make a finding of
improvement.” Id. First, as to the workers’ compensation benefits, we find that the
district court committed no error. Because a decision by another agency about
whether a claimant is disabled is based on its rules, and because the Commissioner
3
must make its own determination based on social security law, a determination
made by another agency that a claimant is disabled is not binding on the
Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. Nevertheless, “[t]he findings of
disability by another agency, although not binding on the [Commissioner], are
entitled to great weight.” Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1241 (11th Cir.
1983). However here, the state decided to grant workers’ compensation benefits to
Parrish in 1990, well before the finding of medical improvement and termination
of benefits in 1995. As such, the state’s determination regarding benefits has little,
if any, relevance to the determination of medical improvement and termination of
disability.
Second, as to a prior doctor’s evaluation in 2002, we find that Parrish’s
argument fails for similar temporal reasons as noted above with regard to workers’
compensation benefits. Parrish relies upon a medical evaluation performed in
2002, well after the finding of medical improvement and termination of benefits in
1995. Hence, that 1995 evaluation does not, and cannot, undermine the finding of
medical improvement in 1995 because the subsequent 2002 evaluation did not
purport to consider Parrish’s condition in 1995. At best, the subsequent 2002
evaluation may constitute evidence that, since the termination of benefits, Parrish’s
impairments have worsened.
4
Upon careful review of the administrative proceedings, the medical record,
the proceedings in the district court, and upon consideration of the parties’ briefs,
we find no error. We find that the ALJ did not err in excluding these items from
his evaluation of medical improvement. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5