at C2-3, with his central canal and right neural foramen within normal limits. (Tr. 508). Dr. Adler opined Plaintiff had minimal narrowing at C3-4, but his central canal was within normal limits. (Tr. 508). Dr. Adler found Plaintiff had no evidence of disc bulge or focal disc profusion at C4-5, and Plaintiffs central canal and neural for-aminals were within normal limits'. (Tr. 508). Plaintiffs central, canal was within normal limits at C5-6, with “minimal” joint hypertrophy and mild bilateral neural fora-minal narrowing. (Tr. 509). In cessation cases, the burden is on the Commissioner to prove that the claimant is no longer disabled as of the cessation date because the Plaintiff had experienced “medical improvement.” See Simpson v. Schweiker, 691 F.2d 966, 969 (11th Cir. 1982) (<HOLDING>), superceded by statute on other grounds as
holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that the alj erred in determining that the claimant was disabled when a retrospective diagnosis along with all other medical evidence supported a finding of disability holding that in cessation of disability cases medical improvement standard places burden on government to prove that the claimant is no longer disabled as of cessation date holding that because a suspension admittedly is a concession that disability is continuing  claimant need only show that the work provided by the employer on which the suspension is based is no longer available to claimant whereupon total disability payments must be reinstated as of the date of termination of that employment