Squires v. Social Security Administration

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEP 26, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-11157
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-02205-MAP
EARL SQUIRES,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 26, 2011)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Earl Squires appeals a judgment that affirmed the denial of his application
for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income from the Social

-- 1 of 3 --

Security Administration. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Squires challenges the
finding that his part-time position as a custodian at a Duncan Donuts restaurant
was substantial gainful activity for the purpose of establishing past relevant work.
We affirm.
We review the decision by the Commissioner “to determine if it is supported
by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Lewis v. Callahan,
125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). Substantial evidence consists of “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Id.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Squires’s past employment
constituted substantial gainful activity. A person is not disabled if he can return to
his past relevant work, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv), which
includes work that he had performed “within the past 15 years, that was substantial
gainful activity, and that lasted long enough for [the claimant] to learn to do it,” id.
§§ 404.1560(b)(1), 416.960(b)(1). In August 2005, Squires accepted a position as
a custodian at a Duncan Donuts restaurant for which he was paid over $1,400 a
month, which created a presumption that he had performed substantial gainful
activity that year. See id. §§ 404.1574(b)(2)(ii), 416.974(b)(2)(ii). The custodial
tasks that Squires performed daily at Duncan Donuts ranged from cleaning floors
2

-- 2 of 3 --

to making deliveries, which were significant physical and mental activities that
qualified as substantial activity, notwithstanding the fact that Squires worked part-
time. See id. §§ 404.1572(a), 416.972(a). Although Squires earned less in 2006
than in 2005, his work was a gainful activity because it was performed “for pay or
profit.” Id. §§ 404.1572(b), 416.972(b). Squires earned seven dollars an hour for
his custodial services.
We AFFIRM the judgment in favor of the Commissioner.
3

-- 3 of 3 --