Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar SCOTT WILLIAM CARTLIDGE v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 Docket: 1:24-cv-00082-MW-ZCB The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s order upholding the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s decision denying Scott Cartlidge’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court held that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not err in assessing Cartlidge’s residual functional capacity or in rejecting his subjective testimony regarding the intensity and limiting effects of his bipolar disorder. The court applied the “substantial evidence” standard of review, which requires affirming the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by relevant evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if the evidence might also support a contrary result. Under this standard, the court cannot re-weigh evidence or make credibility determinations de novo. The court found that the ALJ complied with the five-step sequential evaluation framework and provided explicit and adequate reasons for not fully crediting Cartlidge’s testimony, specifically noting inconsistencies between his statements about missing work and the medical evidence showing ongoing treatment without symptoms severe enough to prevent all work. The court distinguished the appellant’s reliance on *Simon v. Commissioner*, clarifying that unlike in *Simon*, Cartlidge challenged the rejection of his own subjective testimony rather than a treating medical provider’s opinion, and the ALJ’s credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the court rejected Cartlidge’s argument that his lack of full-time employment for ten years automatically established disability, reiterating that the five-step framework, not a simple logic test based on work history, governs the evaluation. As a result of this affirmation, the Commissioner’s denial of benefits remains in effect, and Cartlidge is not entitled to receive disability insurance or supplemental security income benefits from the Social Security Administration. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.