Jaime Norris v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Court
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 3, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Practice Areas
Case Summary
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0146p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ JAIME B. NORRIS, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 24-3930 │ v. │ │ COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, │ Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:23-cv-01540—David A. Ruiz, District Judge. Decided and Filed: June 3, 2025 Before: COLE, READLER, and RITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Eric S. McDaniel, Matthew J. Kasper, MALYUK MCDANIEL KASPER LLC, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, for Appellant. Brian C. Baak, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. _________________ OPINION _________________ COLE, Circuit Judge. An administrative law judge denied Jaime Norris’s application for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income after finding that Norris could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. The district court agreed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the decision. We affirm. No. 24-3930 Norris v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Page 2 I. In October 2020, Norris, who was thirty-nine years old, applied for disability benefits and supplemental security income. Norris asserted that he was disabled and limited in his ability to work because he suffers from several mental and physical disorders, including anxiety, depression, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, post- traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, irritable bowel syndrome, migraines, and agoraphobia. The Social Security Administration denied Norris’s claim, prompting him to seek a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). During the hearing, Norris and a vocational expert testified. Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a written decision, concluding that Norris was not disabled under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Considering the expert’s testimony, the ALJ concluded that Norris could successfully adjust to other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Norris appealed the denial to the Appeals Council, which denied his request for review, finalizing the ALJ’s decision. Norris then filed this civil action, seeking judicial review of the decision. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Norris timely appealed. II. We review whether the ALJ “applied the correct legal standards and whether the[ir] findings . . . are supported by substantial evidence.” Hargett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 964 F.3d 546, 551 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if there is “more than a mere scintilla” of evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) (cleaned up). We do not resolve conflicting testimony or evaluate credibility. Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2001). We affirm an ALJ’s decision if their findings are “reasonably drawn from the record No. 24-3930 Norris v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Page 3 or supported by substantial evidence, even if that evidence could support a contrary decision.” Elam ex rel. Golay v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 348 F.3d 124, 125 (6th Cir. 2003). III. To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must be disabled under the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). An ALJ employs a five-step sequential evaluation process to assess whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). “The claimant bears the burden of proof during the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Com
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0146p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
┐
JAIME B. NORRIS, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 24-3930 │ v. │ │ COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, │ Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:23-cv-01540—David A. Ruiz, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 3, 2025
Before: COLE, READLER, and RITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ON BRIEF: Eric S. McDaniel, Matthew J. Kasper, MALYUK MCDANIEL KASPER LLC, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, for Appellant. Brian C. Baak, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. _________________
OPINION
_________________
COLE, Circuit Judge. An administrative law judge denied Jaime Norris’s application for
social security disability benefits and supplemental security income after finding that Norris could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. The district court agreed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the decision. We affirm. No. 24-3930 Norris v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Page 2
I.
In October 2020, Norris, who was thirty-nine years old, applied for disability benefits and
supplemental security income. Norris asserted that he was disabled and limited in his ability to work because he suffers from several mental and physical disorders, including anxiety, depression, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, post- traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, irritable bowel syndrome, migraines, and agoraphobia. The Social Security Administration denied Norris’s claim, prompting him to seek a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
During the hearing, Norris and a vocational expert testified. Following the hearing, the
ALJ issued a written decision, concluding that Norris was not disabled under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Considering the expert’s testimony, the ALJ concluded that Norris could successfully adjust to other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.
Norris appealed the denial to the Appeals Council, which denied his request for review,
finalizing the ALJ’s decision. Norris then filed this civil action, seeking judicial review of the decision. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision.
Norris timely appealed.
II.
We review whether the ALJ “applied the correct legal standards and whether the[ir]
findings . . . are supported by substantial evidence.” Hargett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 964 F.3d 546, 551 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if there is “more than a mere scintilla” of evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) (cleaned up). We do not resolve conflicting testimony or evaluate credibility. Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2001). We affirm an ALJ’s decision if their findings are “reasonably drawn from the record No. 24-3930 Norris v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Page 3
or supported by substantial evidence, even if that evidence could support a contrary decision.” Elam ex rel. Golay v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 348 F.3d 124, 125 (6th Cir. 2003).
III.
To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must be disabled under the Social Security
Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). An ALJ employs a five-step sequential evaluation process to assess whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). “The claimant bears the burden of proof during the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Com
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 3, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools