Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-00819/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-00819-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JERRY NEAL LOVELADY,

Claimant,

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-819-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND

Claimant, Jerry Lovelady, commenced this action on May 1, 2014, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of the

Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and

thereby denying his claim for a period of disability, disability insurance, and

supplemental security income benefits. For the reasons stated herein, the court finds

that the Commissioner’s ruling is due to be reversed, and this case is due to be

remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

The court’s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is

a narrow one. The scope of review is limited to determining whether there is

substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the

Commissioner, and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Lamb v.

FILED

 2015 Mar-10 AM 10:26

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-00819-CLS Document 12 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 6
Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253

(11th Cir. 1983).

Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s decision is neither supported by

substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legal standards. Specifically,

claimant asserts that the ALJ improperly considered the opinion of his treating

physician, improperly gave weight to the opinion of a non-medical reviewing

consultant, and failed to adequately develop the record. Upon review of the record,

the court concludesthat the second contention hassufficient merit to warrantreversal

and remand.

An individual named V.A. Smith, a “Single Decision Maker,” or “SDM,” who

does not appear to be a doctor or other medical professional, completed the

administrative Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment on December 21,

2010. Smith found that claimant could occasionally lift and/or carry up to twenty

pounds, frequently lift and/or carry up to ten pounds, stand and/or walk for a total of

aboutsix hoursin an eight-hour workday,sit for a total of aboutsix hoursin an eighthour workday, and engage in unlimited pushing and pulling movements. Claimant

could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasionally climb ramps or stairs,

stoop, and crouch; and frequently balance, kneel, and crawl. He was limited in his

ability to reach in all directions, but he did not have any other manipulative

2

Case 2:14-cv-00819-CLS Document 12 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 6
limitations. He had no visual or communicative limitations. He was admonished to

avoid all exposure to hazards such as machinery and heights, and to avoid

concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, and humidity. Even so, Smith

determined that claimant could have unlimited exposure to wetness, noise, vibration,

fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and poor ventilation. Smith further stated that claimant’s

impairments could reasonably be expected to produce some of claimant’s alleged

symptoms and functional limitations, but that claimant’s statements about his

symptoms and functional limitations were only partially credible. Finally, Smith

indicated that there was no medical source statement in the record addressing

claimant’s physical capacities.

1

“Because an SDM has no medical credentials, but instead makes the initial

disability determination after consulting with appropriate medical sources,

SDM-completed forms are not opinion evidence at the appeals level, and the ALJ

should not give any evidentiary weight to the residual functional capacity

determination of an SDM.” Walker v. Colvin, No. 2:13-CV-754-CSC, 2014 WL

7336888, *5 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 22, 2014) (citing Cooper v. Commissioner of Social

Security, 521 F. App’x 803, 807 (11th Cir. 2013); Siverio v. Commissioner of Social

Security, 461 F. App’x 869, 871 (11th Cir. 2012)).2 Despite those pronouncements,

1

 Tr. 58-65. 

2

In the Walker decision, the Middle District of Alabama explained the Social Security

Administration’s use of the Single Decision Maker model as follows: 

3

Case 2:14-cv-00819-CLS Document 12 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 6
the Eleventh Circuit has been careful to note that consideration of a single decision

maker’s opinion is harmless error, as long as the ALJ did not place “great weight” on

the opinion, and the ALJ’s decision is based on other substantial medical evidence

of record. See Castel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 355 F. App’x 260, 265-66

(11th Cir. 2009). 

Here, the ALJ did not explicitly address the Single Decision Maker’s

assessment in the administrative decision. Even so, claimant asserts that the ALJ

implicitly (and impermissibly) relied upon that assessment. The record appears to

support claimant’s assertion. The ALJ found that claimant had the physical residual

functional capacity to perform light work, “except that he can never climb ladders,

ropes, or scaffolds, occasionally climb ramps or stairs, occasionally stoop, kneel,

crouch, or crawl, and frequently engage in activities requiring balance. Bilaterally,

he can occasionally engage in overhead reaching.”3 Thatresidual functional capacity

finding is consistent with the limitations imposed in the Single Decision Maker’s

administrative assessment, thereby indicating that the ALJ may have placed “great

“SDMs are part of a test program of the Social Security Administration for

making initial disability determinations by non-medical experts. 20 C.F.R. §

404.906(a).” Chaverst v. Astrue, 2012 WL 5379063 at *8 (N.D. Ala. 2012); see also

20 CFR § 416.1406 (setting forth information about the test program with respect to

SSI benefits). Alabama is one of the states in which the use of SDMs is being tested.

71 Fed. Reg. 45,890 (August 10, 2006).

Walker, 2014 WL 7336888, at *5 n.5. 

3

 Tr. 17. 

4

Case 2:14-cv-00819-CLS Document 12 Filed 03/10/15 Page 4 of 6
weight” on that assessment.

Additionally, absent any other medical source statement in the record

addressing claimant’s physical capacities, the court cannot conclude that the ALJ’s

decision is based on other substantial evidence. The ALJ “is not required to seek

additional independent expert medical testimony before making a disability

determination if the record is sufficient and additional expert testimony is not

necessary for an informed decision.” Nation v. Barnhart, 153 F. App’x 597, 598

(11th Cir. 2005) (citing Wilson v. Apfel, 179 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999);

Holladay v. Bowen, 848 F.2d 1206, 1209-10 (11th Cir. 1988)) (emphasis supplied).

Here, the record was not sufficient for the ALJ to make an informed decision,

and it is not sufficient for the court to determine whether the ALJ impermissibly

(albeit implicitly) relied upon the Single Decision Maker’s assessment. 

Remand is warranted for the ALJ to more fully articulate the weight he

afforded to the residual functional capacity assessment performed by the Single

Decision Maker. If the ALJ afforded that assessment any weight, even implicitly,

then he should either obtain an additional consultative physical examination from an

acceptable medical source, and/or additional evidence from claimant’s treating

sources about the extent of claimant’s functional limitations, and render a revised

residual functional capacity finding.

4

4 Because remand is warranted on these grounds, the court need not consider claimant’s other

5

Case 2:14-cv-00819-CLS Document 12 Filed 03/10/15 Page 5 of 6
Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and this

action is REMANDED to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion and order. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this file.

DONE this 10th day of March, 2015.

______________________________

United States District Judge

arguments. 

6

Case 2:14-cv-00819-CLS Document 12 Filed 03/10/15 Page 6 of 6