and woozy, and causes her eyes to blur. (Id. at 33-34, 42). IV. Analysis A. Standard Of Review In reviewing claims brought under the Act, this Court’s role is a limited one. The Court’s review is limited to determining 1) whether the decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence and 2) whether the correct legal standards were applied. Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir.1990). A court may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Sewell v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 1065, 1067 (11th Cir.1986). The Commissioner’s findings of fact must be affirmed if they are based upon substantial evidence. Brown v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1233, 1235 (11th Cir.1991); Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether substantial evidence
holding that the appeals boards eonclusion was supported by substantial evidence which left no reasonable doubt as to whether the claim was work connected holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized holding that the nonmoving party must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment recognizing that a noevidence summary judgment is improper if the nonmovant brings forth more than a scintilla of evidence holding substantial evidence is defined as more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance and consists of such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a eonclusion 