Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit / Deming v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
11th Cir.

Deming v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

March 19, 2026 ·3:23-cv-24650-MJF ·Per Curiam · By Maria Santos

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Steven Deming's claim for disability insurance benefits, ruling that the Administrative Law Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court held that a 100% VA disability rating does not bind the Social Security Administration, which applies a distinct legal standard for determining disability.

Key takeaways

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Steven Deming's claim for disability benefits.

Steven Deming, a former U.S. Air Force member, applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits in 2021, claiming he became disabled on August 1, 2017, due to a combination of physical and mental impairments. His conditions included persistent depressive disorder, anxiety, atrial fibrillation, plantar fasciitis, and sleep apnea. The Department of Veterans Affairs had assessed Deming a 100% combined disability rating for these service-related conditions. Deming argued that his medical records and VA rating proved he was disabled. However, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied his claim in May 2023, finding that while Deming had severe impairments, he retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work with specific limitations. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed the ALJ's decision. Deming then appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, proceeding pro se, arguing that the ALJ's determination was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Eleventh Circuit applied a deferential standard of review, determining whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. The court emphasized that substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and includes relevant evidence a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The court rejected Deming's primary argument that his 100% VA disability rating mandated a finding of disability under Social Security law. Citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504, the court noted that decisions by other governmental agencies are based on their own rules and are not binding on the Social Security Administration. The court explained that while an ALJ must consider a VA decision, they are not required to follow it if the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the ALJ had expressly addressed the VA rating and explained why it was inconsistent with the objective medical evidence in the record. The ALJ found that Deming's conditions were 'mostly stable' and that his treatment records showed he engaged in more physical activity than he claimed, such as swimming, lifting weights, and walking up to four miles per day. Furthermore, the record indicated improvements in Deming's anxiety and sleep apnea symptoms due to treatment and medication. The court concluded that the ALJ provided a reasonable rationale, supported by the record, that Deming's array of conditions, while limiting his ability to work to some degree, did not render him disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

The decision affirms the denial of Deming's benefits, meaning he will not receive Social Security disability insurance payments based on this ruling. The ruling reinforces the principle that a VA disability rating does not automatically qualify a claimant for Social Security benefits, as the two systems use different definitions of disability. It also confirms that the Eleventh Circuit will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the ALJ's if substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings, even if the claimant presents a strong case based on their own medical history and VA status. The case remains closed with no remand instructions.

Civil Social Security

Share

Related from this court

Jul 16, 2026 Savannah Shoals, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Jul 16, 2026 Middlebrooks v. Bond, James Bond, Inc. Jul 15, 2026 Ali Cem Erenler v. TJM Properties, Inc. Jul 15, 2026 Arenales-Salgado-de-Oliveira v. Director, USCIS
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.