Fulks v. Comm Social Security

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0144n.06
Filed: February 21, 2007
No. 06-5526
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
EVA FULKS, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
v. ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
)
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF ) MEMORANDUM
SOCIAL SECURITY, ) OPINION
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
BEFORE: NORRIS, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Claimant Eva Fulks was born with a heart defect and has received
Supplemental Security Income benefits for most of her life. In 2002, however, the Commissioner
deemed her no longer disabled because her medical impairments had improved to the extent that her
residual functional capacity allowed her to perform gainful activity. The district court affirmed the
Commissioner’s decision. Because her benefits have since been reinstated, this appeal concerns only
the two-year period during which she did not receive them.
Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s failure to provide a complete administrative
record dating back to the 1970s, when she was first deemed to be eligible for benefits, denied her
an opportunity for meaningful review. When the cessation of benefits is at issue, the central question
is whether the claimant’s medical impairments have improved to the point where she is able to
No. 06-5526
Fulks v. Commissioner
perform substantial gainful activity. 42 U.S.C. § 423(f). However, improvement is measured not
from the initial award of benefits but from “the most recent favorable decision that you were disabled
or continued to be disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.994(b)(1)(i). In this case, the last favorable decision
prior to termination occurred in 1992. Hence, as the district court recognized, review of medical
records dating back to the 1970s was not necessary to the analysis.
With this time frame in mind, we have reviewed the extensive medical record and the
decision of the administrative law judge, which was summarily affirmed by the Appeals Council.
We find substantial evidence to support the conclusion that, at the time of the decision below,
claimant’s condition had improved to the extent that she could perform unskilled, light work. See
generally Longworth v. Comm’r, 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005) (Commissioner’s decision must
be affirmed unless she has applied the incorrect legal standard or has made factual findings that are
unsupported by substantial evidence). For her part, claimant herself points to nothing in the
administrative law judge’s decision that represents an incorrect legal standard or an insufficiently
supported factual finding.
The Commissioner’s decision is affirmed based upon the reasoning contained in the decision
of the administrative law judge dated April 7, 2004.
-2-