Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00478/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00478-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUDOLPH J. GULSBY, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

 CIVIL ACTION 04-0478-BH-M

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : 

Commissioner of

Social Security, : 

Defendant. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security

ruling which denied claims for disability insurance benefits

and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The action was

referred for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B). Oral argument was heard on June 27, 2005. Upon

consideration of the administrative record, the memoranda of

the parties, and oral argument, it is recommended that the

decision of the Commissioner be reversed, that this action be

remanded, and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff

Rudolph J. Gulsby and against Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart.

This Court is not free to reweigh the evidence or

substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of Health

and Human Services, Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233,

Case 1:04-cv-00478-M Document 17 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 8
1Plaintiff completed a form indicating that he had received a

Graduate Equivalency Degree (Tr. 82). 

2

1239 (11th Cir. 1983), which must be supported by substantial

evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). 

The substantial evidence test requires "that the decision

under review be supported by evidence sufficient to justify a

reasoning mind in accepting it; it is more than a scintilla,

but less than a preponderance." Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d

914, 918 (11th Cir. 1984), quoting Jones v. Schweiker, 551

F.Supp. 205 (D. Md. 1982).

Plaintiff was born June 22, 1947. At the time of the

administrative hearing, Gulsby was fifty-five years old, had

completed a high school education (Tr. 82)1, and had previous

work experience as a manager/owner in the restaurant business

(Tr. 294). In claiming benefits, Plaintiff alleges disability

due to history of rectal carcinoma, status post surgical

recession, chemotherapy and radiation as well as depression

(Doc. 8 Fact Sheet).

The Plaintiff filed protective applications for

disability and SSI on August 27, 2002 (Tr. 49-52, 269-73). 

Benefits were denied following a hearing by an Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ) who determined that although Plaintiff has a

severe impairment, he is able to perform his past relevant

Case 1:04-cv-00478-M Document 17 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 8
2Because the Court is reversing the ALJ’s decision on this

claim, it is unnecessary to review Plaintiff’s other claims in this

action.

3

work as a food service general manger (Tr. 13-28). Plaintiff

requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 10-12) by the

Appeals Council, but it was denied (Tr. 4-6).

Plaintiff claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not

supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Gulsby

alleges that: (1) The ALJ improperly found that he did not

suffer from a severe mental impairment; (2) the ALJ did not

properly consider the opinion of an examining psychologist;

and (3) the ALJ improperly discounted his testimony (Doc. 8). 

Defendant has responded to—and denies—these claims (Doc. 13).

Plaintiff claims that the ALJ improperly found that he

did not have a severe mental impairment.2 In Brady v.

Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 920 (11th Cir. 1984), the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals held that "[a]n impairment can be

considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality

which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it

would not be expected to interfere with the individual's

ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work

experience." Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 920 (11th Cir.

1984); Flynn v. Heckler, 768 F.2d 1273 (11th Cir. 1985); cf.

Case 1:04-cv-00478-M Document 17 Filed 06/27/05 Page 3 of 8
3"An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if

it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do

basic work activities."

4Xanax is a class four narcotic used for the management of

anxiety disorders. Physician's Desk Reference 2294 (52nd ed. 1998).

4

20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a) (2004).3 The Eleventh Circuit Court

of Appeals has gone on to say that "[t]he 'severity' of a

medically ascertained disability must be measured in terms of

its effect upon ability to work, and not simply in terms of

deviation from purely medical standards of bodily perfection

or normality." McCruter v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544, 1547 (11th

Cir. 1986). 

A psychological evaluation was performed by Jill Hall,

Ph.D., on October 9, 2002 in which Gulsby reported having been

depressed since 2001 when he and his wife were both diagnosed

to have cancer; his wife was given only six months to live

(Tr. 187-92). Gulsby reported taking Xanax4 to combat the

depression. Hall stated that Plaintiff’s mood was dysphoric

and his range of affect constricted though his affective

expression was appropriate. The Psychologist noted that his

memory and insight were good, and though his mental illness

was not serious, she diagnosed him to have Adjustment Disorder

with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood; she found his prognosis

to be fair though she suggested psychotropic medication or

mental health treatment. Hall found no evidence of

Case 1:04-cv-00478-M Document 17 Filed 06/27/05 Page 4 of 8
5Paxil is used to treat depression. Physician's Desk Reference

2851-56 (52nd ed. 1998). 

5

malingering. The Psychologist further stated that Gulsby “may

not be able to withstand the stresses of an ordinary work

setting at this time due to anxiety and depression associated

will illness in the patient and his wife;” this was so though

he “ha[d] the ability to understand, to carry out, and

remember instructions, and to respond appropriately to

supervision and coworkers” (Tr. 191). 

Plaintiff testified that he takes Xanax and Paxil5 (Tr.

106-07, 302). The medications help but he still experiences

both anxiety and depression (Tr. 302-03). 

Dr. Thomas D. Sunnenberg, Hematologist-Oncologist, stated

that “Gulsby is severely depressed in a situational sense, and

not due to cancer alone” (Tr. 254). Sunnenberg goes on to

state that although he is doing well with his own bout of

cancer, his wife “was diagnosed simultaneously [] with

incurable pancreatic cancer,” and that “[a]s her disease

worsens . . [h]e grows more depressed. He is unable to work

due to depression and daily caregiver role” (id.). Gulsby’s

treating physician went on to state that his condition could

be expected to last for more than twelve months and that he

was not a malingerer (Tr. 255). Additionally, his symptoms

would distract him from adequately performing his daily

Case 1:04-cv-00478-M Document 17 Filed 06/27/05 Page 5 of 8
6

activities and that his impairments would cause him to miss

more than three days a month (Tr. 256-57).

The ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s testimony (Tr. 26), an

opinion by a non-examining State physician that Gulsby’s

anxiety was severe (see Tr. 19-20), the opinion of treating

physician Dr. Sunnenberg (Tr. 24), and the conclusion of

Psychologist Hall (Tr. 24). Essentially, the ALJ has rejected

all of these opinions and/or conclusions though they

collectively lead to the conclusion that Plaintiff has a

severe mental impairment. Though the ALJ dismisses Gulsby’s

anxiety and depression as “situational in nature,” this Court

finds that the evidence demonstrates that the mental illness

lasted for more than a year. 

Based on review of the entire record, the Court finds

that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by

substantial evidence. Therefore, it is recommended that the

action be reversed and remanded to the Social Security

Administration for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion, to include, at a minimum, a

supplemental hearing for the gathering of evidence regarding

Plaintiff’s mental impairment. 

Furthermore, it is recommended that a final judgment be

entered ordering remand in this action pursuant to sentence

Case 1:04-cv-00478-M Document 17 Filed 06/27/05 Page 6 of 8
7

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501

U.S. 89 (1991). For further procedures not inconsistent with

this recommendation, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292

(1993).

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation

or anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service

of this document, file specific written objections with the

clerk of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in the

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the

factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B,

1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings

and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more

detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by

filing a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate

Judge’s Recommendation” within ten days after being

served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a

different time is established by order. The

statement of objection shall specify those portions

of the recommendation to which objection is made and

the basis for the objection. The objecting party

shall submit to the district judge, at the time of

filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a

different disposition made. It is insufficient to

submit only a copy of the original brief submitted

to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the

original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of

Case 1:04-cv-00478-M Document 17 Filed 06/27/05 Page 7 of 8
8

the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to

a Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or

judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay

the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required

before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 27th day of June, 2005.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00478-M Document 17 Filed 06/27/05 Page 8 of 8