Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00461/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00461-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL A. ROBERTS, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. :

 : CIVIL ACTION 15-0461-M

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Social Security Commissioner, :

 :

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

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

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security 

ruling denying claims for disability insurance benefits and 

Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter SSI) (Docs. 1, 15). 

The parties filed written consent and this action has been 

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all 

proceedings and order judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, and S.D.Ala. Gen.L.R. 73(b) (see Doc. 

21). Oral argument was waived in this action (Doc. 20). After 

considering the administrative record and the memoranda of the 

parties, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be 

REVERSED and that this action be REMANDED for further actions 

not inconsistent with the Orders of the Court.

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 18
2

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, 1239 (11th

Cir. 1983), which must be supported by substantial evidence. 

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

evidence 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).

At the time of the administrative hearing, Plaintiff was 

twenty-nine years old, had completed a high school education 

(Tr. 186), and had previous work experience as a tree cutter and 

automobile mechanic (see Tr. 55). Plaintiff alleges disability 

due to bipolar disorder, mood disorder, personality disorder, 

and a history of alcohol abuse (Doc. 15 Fact Sheet).

The Plaintiff applied for disability benefits and SSI on 

September 26, 2012, alleging that he was disabled as of that 

date1 (Tr. 13, 156-65). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied 

benefits, determining that although Roberts could not return to 

his previous work, there were specific jobs that he could 

perform (Tr. 13-23). Plaintiff requested review of the hearing 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1Roberts originally alleged a disability onset date of December 

31, 2008, but amended the date to September 26, 2012 at the hearing 

before the Administrative Law Judge (Tr. 13, 43).

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 18
3

decision (Tr. 8-9), but the Appeals Council denied it (Tr. 1-6).

Plaintiff claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not 

supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Roberts 

alleges that: (1) The ALJ did not weigh—or even acknowledge—the 

medical evidence provided by his treating Psychiatrist; (2) the 

ALJ did not properly develop the record; (3) the ALJ’s 

determination of his residual functional capacity (hereinafter 

RFC) was incomplete; and (4) the ALJ’s hypothetical questions to 

the Vocational Expert were incomplete (Doc. 15). Defendant has 

responded to—and denies—these claims (Doc. 16). The relevant 

evidence of record follows.2

On September 28, 2012, Roberts was seen at AltaPointe 

Health Systems, following a hospitalization, for a suicide 

attempt, at Mobile Infirmary Medical Complex that he left 

against medical advice (Tr. 244-49). Plaintiff was noted to 

have impaired memory and concentration and racing thoughts, but 

no anxiety; insight and judgment were fair. Roberts was 

diagnosed to have a mood disorder NOS, alcohol abuse, a 

borderline personality, cuts on his arm, and legal troubles; he 

was prescribed Risperdal,3 trazodone,4 and Vistaril.5 Plaintiff 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2Evidence that pre-dates Roberts’s alleged onset date of 

September 26, 2012 by more than a year will not be included.

3Risperdal is used “for the management of the manifestations of 

psychotic disorders.” Physician's Desk Reference 1310-13 (52nd ed. 

1998). 

4Trazodone is used for the treatment of depression. Physician's 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 18
4

was considered to be at elevated risk for continued self-harm.

On February 26, 2013, Dr. Harold R. Veits, Psychiatrist, 

reviewed the available record evidence at the request of the 

Social Security Administration and, without examining him, 

determined that Roberts suffered from personality disorders, 

affective disorders, and alcohol/substance addition disorders 

(Tr. 71-81, 305). Veits determined that Plaintiff had moderate 

restriction of activities of daily living, moderate difficulties 

in maintaining functioning and in maintaining concentration,

persistence, or pace, and had had one or two episodes of 

decompensation of extended duration. The Psychiatrist indicated 

that Roberts’s statements concerning his impairments and 

symptoms were only partially credible. Veits indicated 

Plaintiff had understanding and memory limitations, was 

moderately limited in his ability to understand, remember, and 

carry out detailed instructions, and could maintain attention 

and concentration for only two-hour periods. Roberts was 

moderately limited in interacting appropriately with the general 

public and in accepting instructions and responding

appropriately to criticism from supervisors; interactions with 

the public should be brief and casual while criticism should be 

provided in a non-confrontational, constructive manner. Roberts 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Desk Reference 518 (52nd ed. 1998).

5Vistaril is used to treat anxiety and tension and may be used to 

control nausea and vomiting. http://www.drugs.com/vistaril.html

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 18
5

was moderately limited in responding appropriately to changes in 

the work setting; changes should be infrequent and gradually 

introduced. 

On October 11, 2012, an AltaPointe Therapist found Roberts 

sad, with a flat affect, and reporting sleeping difficulties; he 

denied using drugs in over two years, but was not taking his 

medications because someone stole them (Tr. 303-04). Plaintiff 

had suicidal thoughts; insight and judgment were poor. On 

November 2, Roberts reported depression, feelings of 

hopelessness, and wanting to die, though he denied a plan to 

hurt himself (Tr. 298). On November 9, the Case Manager noted 

that Plaintiff was not progressing as he was not keeping 

appointments or taking his medication as prescribed (Tr. 295). 

On December 6, the Therapist noted some progress as Plaintiff 

reported a reduction of psychotic symptoms and improved sleep 

and he was attending appointments; though sad, with no anxiety 

and fair insight and judgment, his memory was unimpaired and his 

thoughts were logical and coherent (Tr. 290-91). On that same 

date, a CRNP reported obsessive suicidal thoughts with no plan 

of execution, poor insight and judgment, and moderate anxiety 

(Tr. 288-89). Four days later, Roberts told his Case Manager 

that his medications were working and he had not had any anger 

outbursts (Tr. 287). On December 27, Plaintiff stated that he 

was taking his medications and was sleeping and feeling better 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 5 of 18
6

(Tr. 285). On January 9, 2013, Roberts reported that he was 

less depressed and was sleeping better; he had no suicidal 

thoughts or anxiety (Tr. 283-84). On January 29, the AltaPointe 

Pharmacist increased Plaintiff’s Paxil6 and Risperdal dosage as 

he had recently been irritable, angry, sleeping poorly, and had 

been in a fight; he voiced suicidal ideation (Tr. 279-80). On 

February 6, Roberts reported sleeping better and being less 

depressed with the medication changes; the Therapist noted fair 

insight and judgment with no anxiety (Tr. 276-77). On February 

14, Plaintiff reported no anger outbursts and that he was 

exercising daily (Tr. 274). On March 20, he missed an 

appointment because he had blacked out and had a headache (Tr. 

270). On March 26, Roberts reported less depression; the 

Therapist noted no self-injurious behavior, logical thoughts, 

unimpaired memory, fair insight and judgment, and no anxiety 

(Tr. 266-67). On the same date, the Doctor noted euthymic 

affect, suicidal thoughts with no plan, no impairment in 

concentration, poor insight and judgment, and mild anxiety (Tr. 

264-65) while an RN found him to be irritable and sad with 

impaired memory and moderate anxiety (Tr. 262-63). On April 1, 

the Therapist stated that Roberts’s Mother had reported that he 

was using alcohol and had not been taking his medications (Tr. 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6Paxil is used to treat depression. Physician's Desk Reference

2851-56 (52nd ed. 1998). 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 6 of 18
7

261); the Mother reported that he was doing better on April 25, 

2013 (Tr. 259). 

On May 2, Roberts reported that he had been rushed to the 

hospital because he was suicidal, suffering multiple panic 

attacks and depression daily and getting only two-to-three hours 

of sleep per night; his thoughts were logical, his concentration 

impaired, his insight fair, his judgment poor, and his anxiety 

severe (Tr. 424-25). The Altapointe Pharmacist substituted 

Remeron7 and Latuda8 for Trazodone, Risperdal, and Welbutrin;9 he 

noted suicidal ideation, unimpaired memory, and moderate anxiety 

(Tr. 426-27). On May 7, Plaintiff reported that he was doing 

ok, but was still having suicidal thoughts, but no plan to act 

on them (Tr. 423). The next day, the Therapist reported that 

Roberts had called him and said that he wanted to kill himself; 

his Mother said family members were watching him (Tr. 421). On 

May 9, Roberts reported continuing suicidal thoughts as well as 

homicidal thoughts toward an uncle who had stole something from 

him; he was taking medications as directed (Tr. 419-20). An RN 

found his thoughts logical and coherent and his anxiety only 

mild. On May 10, Plaintiff, who was still suicidal with no 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7Remeron is used to treat major depressive disorders. 

http://www.drugs.com/remeron.html

8Latuda is an antipsychotic medication used to treat 

schizophrenia and episodes of depression in people suffering from 

bipolar disorder. http://www.drugs.com/latuda.html

9Wellbutrin is used for treatment of depression. Physician's 

Desk Reference 1120-21 (52nd ed. 1998). 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 7 of 18
8

plans, reported that his medications were not working; the 

Therapist noted no impairments in memory or concentration with 

logical thoughts and moderate anxiety (Tr. 416-17). On May 13, 

2013, Roberts reported that the medications made him feel 

better; he still experienced suicidal and homicidal thoughts but 

there were fewer of them (Tr. 412-15). On May 16, Plaintiff 

reported that he was taking his medications, but that they were 

not working; he admitted to drinking, was irritable and 

agitated, with poor insight and judgment and no anxiety (Tr. 

409-10). 

On May 20, Plaintiff’s Mother reported to AltaPointe that 

she had filed an involuntary commitment petition against her son 

as, two days earlier after drinking heavily, he had choked his 

father while holding two knives; the police had tased him before 

he was transported to Mobile Infirmary for two days (Tr. 390, 

405-06). Roberts was admitted to East Pointe Hospital for two 

weeks (Tr. 399, 403-05).10 

On June 5, Plaintiff refused to discuss his recent behavior 

or treatment with his Therapist who noted “evident anger;” his 

diagnostic impression was as follows: (1) Bipolar Disorder I, 

most recent episode depressed; substance induced mood disorder, 

ETOH abuse versus dependence; (2) Personality disorder NOS with 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10The Court notes that the records from neither of the

hospitalizations are in the record.

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 8 of 18
9

cluster B traits; and (3) dysfunctional interpersonal 

communication, multiple OPC statuses, limited/maladaptive coping 

skills, no income or medical coverage (Tr. 401). Roberts told 

the RN that he was depressed but less than previously, had no 

suicidal or homicidal ideation, and was taking his medications 

but was not sleeping soundly; she said he was mildly hostile 

with logical thoughts, unimpaired concentration, no anxiety, and 

fair insight and judgment (Tr. 399-400). 

On June 13, 2013, the AltaPointe Therapist stated Roberts 

was still extremely guarded, though he was more positive than 

previously reported; Plaintiff was slightly irritable and flat, 

showing fair insight and judgment with no suicidal or homicidal 

thoughts and no anxiety (Tr. 393-94). That same date, Dr. 

Marianne Saitz reported that he was calm, cooperative, and 

pleasant with logical, coherent thoughts (Tr. 389-92). On June 

18, the Therapist noted that Roberts was more positive, but 

asking to be switched back to his former Therapist (Tr. 381-82). 

On July 8, Plaintiff reported taking his medications; the Case 

Manager thought he was making progress (Tr. 375-76). 

On July 11, AltaPointe Therapist Natashia McCarty stated 

Plaintiff was unpleasant, reporting that his family was not 

meeting his emotional needs; she found him to be making little 

progress as he had trouble controlling his temper and lacked 

insight into his continuing family conflict (Tr. 373-74). 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 9 of 18
10

Roberts had told his Case Manger earlier that day that he was 

going to kill himself within the next two weeks (Tr. 371). On 

June 22, 2013, the AltaPointe Case Manager said that Roberts

appeared to be taking his medications (Tr. 367). On August 5, 

Plaintiff’s Mother said that he was doing better with the 

medication change (Tr. 360). On August 22, Plaintiff reported 

that he had not taken his medications in four days and wanted to 

punch everyone; he had gotten refills and reported that he could 

tell the difference when he took his medications and would 

continue to do so (Tr. 356). That same date, Plaintiff reported 

to Therapist McCarty that he was involved with someone, but had 

been drinking one beer about every three days; she said that, 

although he lacked insight into his problems, his medication 

compliance marked progress (Tr. 354-55; see also Tr. 350). 

Again on August 22, Roberts told his Doctor that he did not have 

suicidal or homicidal ideation but his thoughts raced; he had no 

medication side effects (Tr. 352-53). The Doctor noted no 

impairment in concentration with good insight and judgment. On 

September 12, Plaintiff’s Mother reported that he had gotten 

married after knowing his girlfriend for three weeks and now 

felt that he was in over his head (Tr. 347-48). On September 

19, Roberts told McCarty that he was medication compliant and 

had moved in with his wife; he had no suicidal or homicidal 

thoughts, but had only fair insight and judgment (Tr. 345-46). 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 10 of 18
11

On September 27, Plaintiff’s Mother reported apparent medication 

compliance and that he was doing better (Tr. 342). On October 

29, 2013, Roberts reported that he had gone to Mobile Infirmary, 

but refused to stay, because he wanted to kill himself as he and 

his wife had separated; he expressed homicidal ideation toward 

his wife’s brother who had been ugly to him (Tr. 331-34). 

Plaintiff was happy after talking with his wife (Tr. 333). On 

November 4, the AltaPointe Case Manager reported that Roberts 

was taking his medications and reported that he was not drinking 

(Tr. 327). On November 13, the Case Manger noted that Plaintiff 

had missed recent appointments with his Therapist and Doctor; 

Roberts reported taking his medications, but having trouble 

sleeping (Tr. 324). A week later, family-related issues caused 

Plaintiff significant distress, leading him to spend one night 

in the hospital because he wanted to kill himself (Tr. 320, 

323). On November 25, Roberts reported that he was not drinking 

and his wife was pregnant; medications were causing no side 

effects (Tr. 319). Plaintiff was not drinking because no one 

had money to buy it (Tr. 319). 

On December 3, Doctor Saitz reported that Roberts was 

depressed because his mother-in-law was not letting him speak to 

his pregnant wife; Remeron was discontinued in favor of Prozac11

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11Prozac is used for the treatment of depression. Physician's 

Desk Reference 859-60 (52nd ed. 1998).

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 11 of 18
12

and Zyprexa12 (Tr. 315-16). Plaintiff was sad and flat, verbal 

when prompted, and suicidal with poor insight, fair judgment, 

and impaired concentration. On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff’s 

Mother reported that he was taking his medications and was not 

drinking (Tr. 314). 

On December 17, Therapist McCarty completed an RFC 

evaluation in which she indicated that Roberts had moderate 

restriction of activities of daily living, marked difficulties 

in maintaining social functioning, marked deficiencies of 

concentration persistence, or pace, and had experienced four or 

more episodes of deterioration, causing him to withdraw from the 

situation or experience exacerbation of signs and symptoms (Tr. 

306-07). McCarty further found that Plaintiff had limitations 

in his ability to do the following: understand, carry out, and 

remember instructions; respond appropriately to supervision; 

perform simple or repetitive tasks; he would be extremely 

limited in responding appropriately to co-workers. The 

Therapist indicated that these limitations had lasted at this 

level since February 19, 2007; she reported that he experienced 

medication side effects including poor memory, lethargy, poor 

concentration, tremors, and poor appetite.

On December 31, 2013 AltaPointe records show Roberts’s 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12Zyprexa is used for the “management of the manifestations of 

psychotic disorders.” Physician's Desk Reference 1512 (52nd ed. 1998). 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 12 of 18
13

denial of substance abuse; he was not experiencing suicidal or 

homicidal thoughts, showed poor insight and judgment, and had 

only mild anxiety (Tr. 431-33). 

This concludes the Court’s summary of the medical evidence.

In bringing this action, Roberts has raised four claims. 

The first is that the ALJ did not weigh—or even acknowledge—the 

medical evidence provided by treating Psychiatrist, Dr. Marianne 

Saitz (Doc. 15, pp. 9-12). 

“Medical opinions are statements from physicians and 

psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect 

judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant's] 

impairment(s), including [the claimant's] symptoms, diagnosis 

and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite 

impairment(s), and [the claimant's] physical or mental 

restrictions.” Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 631 

F.3d 1176, 1178-79 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2)). The Court notes that "although 

the opinion of an examining physician is generally entitled to 

more weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician, the 

ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the 

evidence supports a contrary conclusion." Oldham v. Schweiker, 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 13 of 18
14

660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981);13 see also 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527 (2015). The Court further notes that the ALJ is 

required to "state specifically the weight accorded to each item 

of evidence and why he reached that decision." Cowart v. 

Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981). Furthermore, 

social security regulations provide the following instruction:

It is not sufficient for the 

adjudicator to make a single, conclusory 

statement that “the individual's allegations 

have been considered” or that “the 

allegations are (or are not) credible.” It 

is also not enough for the adjudicator 

simply to recite the factors that are 

described in the regulations for evaluating 

symptoms. The determination or decision 

must contain specific reasons for the 

finding on credibility, supported by the 

evidence in the case record, and must be 

sufficiently specific to make clear to the 

individual and to any subsequent reviewers 

the weight the adjudicator gave to the 

individual's statements and the reasons for 

that weight.

SSR 96-7p (Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: 

Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the 

Credibility of an Individual’s Statements).

The Court notes that although the ALJ, in her decision, 

regularly cited to Exhibit 9F, the exhibit wherein the 

Psychiatrist’s recorded notes are found, Roberts is correct in 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!! 13The Eleventh Circuit, in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 

1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopted as precedent decisions 

of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 14 of 18
15

stating that the ALJ did not weigh—or even acknowledge—the 

evidence specifically provided by Dr. Saitz. The Court has 

summarized that evidence already, but will, for purposes of this 

claim, now reiterate the Psychiatrist’s record contributions.

On June 13, 2013, Dr. Saitz reported that Plaintiff was 

calm, cooperative, and pleasant with logical, coherent thoughts; 

his concentration was unimpaired and he had no suicidal or 

homicidal thoughts (Tr. 389-92). On December 3, 2013, Saitz 

reported that Roberts was depressed because of issues with his 

new wife’s family, so she changed his medications; he was sad, 

flat, and suicidal with poor insight, fair judgment, and 

impaired concentration (Tr. 315-16). After both of these 

examinations, the Doctor indicated that Roberts should see a 

doctor again in one month or, if necessary, sooner (Tr. 315, 

391). The Court notes that during the intervening six months 

during which Roberts was not seen by Dr. Saitz, he was examined

by one other Doctor, once on August 22, 2013, who provided no 

evidence that Plaintiff was experiencing any difficulty as shown 

by his findings that Roberts had no suicidal or homicidal 

thoughts, no impairment in concentration, an unimpaired memory, 

good insight and judgment, and no anxiety (see Tr. 352-53).

The Court first finds that Dr. Saitz’s records do not set 

out, as discussed in Winschel and the regulations discussed 

above, her judgment of Roberts’s prognosis, abilities in spite 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 15 of 18
16

of his impairments, or restrictions; therefore, there was 

nothing in her conclusions for the ALJ to accept or reject. As 

such, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s failure to recognize 

and weigh that evidence amounts to, at most, no more than 

harmless error. Roberts’s claim otherwise is without merit.

Plaintiff next claims that the ALJ did not properly develop 

the record. More specifically, the ALJ failed to order a 

consultative examination to fill in evidentiary gaps in the 

record (Doc. 15, pp. 3-12). 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has required that "a 

full and fair record" be developed by the ALJ even if the 

claimant is represented by counsel. Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 

F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981). However, the ALJ “is not 

required to order a consultative examination as long as the 

record contains sufficient evidence for the [ALJ] to make an 

informed decision.” Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 496 F.3d 1253, 1269 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing

Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1281 (11th Cir. 2001)). 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s argument relies on two 

premises: (1) The ALJ improperly relied on the conclusions of 

non-examining Psychiatrist Veits whose opinions were based on a 

small fraction of the record evidence; and (2) the ALJ did not 

properly consider the evidence provided by treating Psychiatrist 

Saitz. The Court has rejected the second of these premises, 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 16 of 18
17

leaving only the merits of the first to be discussed.

The record shows that the only medical evidence considered 

by Non-Examiner Psychiatrist Veits relevant to Roberts’s onset 

date of September 26, 2012 was the initial report from 

AltaPointe, created two days after the onset date (see Tr. 72-

74; cf. Tr. 244-49). The balance of the evidence spans fifteen 

months to December 31, 2013. 

In her decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s testimony 

regarding his impairments and limitations was not credible (Tr. 

18-20). Roberts does not challenge this finding. In weighing 

the medical evidence, the ALJ gave little weight to the 

conclusions of AltaPointe Therapist McCarty (Tr. 20-21). Again, 

Plaintiff does not challenge this finding.

The ALJ gave significant weight to the opinion of Dr. Veits 

and relied on it in fashioning her conclusions regarding 

Roberts’s RFC (Tr. 21); it was the only evidence given any 

evidentiary weight. In her determination, however, the ALJ went 

on to say that “the residual functional capacity finding differs 

somewhat from Dr. Veits’ opinion” (Tr. 21). 

The Court notes, first, that it is troubled that the ALJ 

gave significant weight to a Non-Examining Physician’s opinion 

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 17 of 18
18

that considered such a small portion of the evidence.14 This 

concern is compounded by the ALJ’s frank admission that the RFC 

determination “differs somewhat” from the very evidence on which 

it is based. The Court cannot say that the ALJ has properly 

developed the record in this action. The Court finds that the 

ALJ’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence: 

Plaintiff’s claim that the ALJ did not properly develop the 

record in this action has merit.15

Therefore, it is ORDERED that this action be REVERSED and 

REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further 

administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion, to 

include, at a minimum, the gathering of additional evidence of 

Plaintiff’s ability to work. Judgment will be entered by 

separate Order.

DONE this 10th day of March, 2016.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14In addition to the fact that Veits considered only two days of 

evidence spanning a fifteen-month period, it was comprised of only two 

out of nearly two hundred pages of evidence.

15Because it has reached this decision, the Court finds it 

unnecessary to address Roberts’s other two claims.

Case 1:15-cv-00461-M Document 22 Filed 03/11/16 Page 18 of 18