Mayfield v. Comm Social Security , 231 F. App'x 481 ( 2007 )

NOT FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0584n.06
Filed: August 14, 2007
No. 06-2330
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CYNTHIA MAYFIELD, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
v. )
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL )
SECURITY. )
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
)
)
Before: GIBBONS and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; and BECKWITH, District Judge*
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-appellant Cynthia Mae Mayfield filed an application for Social
Security disability benefits on March 28, 2001, alleging that she became disabled in June 1999 as
the result of an automobile accident. In October 2004, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found
that Mayfield was not entitled to disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.
Mayfield sought review of the Commissioner’s final decision in federal district court. The district
court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and Mayfield appealed.
The question before this court is only whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
decision to deny Mayfield Social Security benefits. The ALJ’s conclusion is not subject to reversal
merely because evidence exists in the record that could support a different conclusion. Mullen v.
*
The Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986). With very limited exception, the diagnostic and objective
medical evidence shows no abnormalities and therefore does not support Mayfield’s treating
physicians’ conclusion that she is totally and permanently disabled. As a consequence, the ALJ’s
decision not to give these opinions controlling weight was not in error. Read in its entirety, the
record confirms that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Mayfield is not entitled to
disability benefits for the relevant period. Because a panel opinion further addressing the issues
raised would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to the Commissioner on the grounds identified by that court.