Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-01004/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-01004-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM MCCARTHA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09CV1004-SRW

) (WO)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner )

of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Plaintiff William McCartha brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and

§ 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security

(“Commissioner”) denying his application for supplemental security income benefits under

the Social Security Act. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the

Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Upon review of the record and briefs

submitted by the parties, the court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner is due

to be affirmed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was twenty-five years old at the time of the administrative hearing and the

ALJ’s decision. (R. 25, 33). Evidence filed in support of his claim of disability demonstrates

that plaintiff was determined to be of low average intelligence and to have attention deficit

disorder as early as 1993, when he was in the second grade (R. 185). He was found to be

eligible for special education services. (R. 188). On reassessment in the fifth grade, plaintiff

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 1 of 14
continued to demonstrate academic delays and required “[l]ess than half-time special

education services.” (R. 176-77). In 2001, when plaintiff transferred to Alabama from

Washington state, he was determined to be eligible to continue with special education

services. (R. 183). Intelligence testing in 2002 – when plaintiff was in the 11th grade –

reflected that plaintiff was functioning in either the “low average” or “borderline” range. (R.

146-149, 190-91). He was then eighteen years old and was “performing academically at a

fifth grade level overall” with spelling at a third grade level. (R. 147). He had recently been

advanced from ninth grade to eleventh grade so that he could participate in vocational

rehabilitation. (R. 148). 

In an evaluation conducted by Sandra Cline, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, on referral

from Vocational Rehabilitation Services, plaintiff reported that he:

takes out trash and “cleans up,” does all the yard work and laundry, but does

not shop or cook. He watches 2-3 hours of TV a day and plays “role play”

games on his Game Boy and PC. He has 3-4 friends but does not date. He

does not listen to music on the radio or stereo. He attends Pleasant Grove

Baptist Church and Sunday School every Sunday. His hobbies are collecting

Pokemon cards. . . . He does not watch or play any sports.

(R. 148). Plaintiff reported difficulty concentrating. (Id.). Dr. Cline diagnosed plaintiff

with mathematics disorder, disorder of written expression, and reading disorder on Axis I,

and borderline intellectual functioning on Axis II. Dr. Cline noted that “[i]f he is to be

successful in the work place, he is going to need help with social skills.” (R. 149).

Plaintiff entered the Employee Development Program at Wiregrass Rehabilitation

Center on April 15, 2002. (R. 153). He initially trained in the food service department. He

2

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 2 of 14
required coaching and monitoring. He had trouble remaining focused, completing work as

instructed, and attending as scheduled. He did not seem to take redirection well, did not

socialize well with his peers or supervisors, and his personal hygiene and grooming were

poor. (R. 153). In March 2003, Wiregrass Rehabilitation Center referred plaintiff to Dr.

Shakir Meghani, a psychiatrist, for evaluation. Plaintiff reported a history of physical abuse

for several years by his stepmother in Seattle. (R. 151). Plaintiff’s mother related problems

with lack of attention, some behavioral problems and sleep problems, and a learning

disability. After conducting a mental status examination, Dr. Meghani diagnosed possible

ADD, learning disability, and borderline intellectual functioning; he prescribed Concerta. (R.

152). On follow-up a few weeks later, plaintiff’s mother reported that plaintiff “follows

instructions, remembers to follow instructions, and there is a definite improvement.” 

(R. 150).

After he began taking the medication, plaintiff began to show progress in his

employee development program. His employment counselor noted that “[h]is grooming

improved as did his interaction skills. He was able to follow instructions and perform tasks

correctly. This happened over time but he did make improvements in regards to all goals and

objectives.” On July 7, 2003, plaintiff withdrew from the program because he wanted to find

a job. (R. 153-54). Plaintiff received a certificate of attendance from high school, not a

regular diploma. (R. 33-34, 114, 154).

In 2006 and 2007, plaintiff worked for a period of six months as a stocker at the Fort

Rucker commissary through Goodwill Industries. (R. 34, 99-100, 119, 126, 135, 155). 

3

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 3 of 14
Plaintiff testified that his problems “were interfering with [his] speed” and that he could not

get his work “done fast enough to even be productive.” (R. 34-35). He stated that he has

been unable to find another job. (R. 35).1

On May 21, 2007, plaintiff protectively filed an application for supplemental security

income benefits, alleging disability on the basis of borderline intellectual functioning,

attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. (R. 106). The following month, Randy

Jordan, Psy.D., performed a consultative psychological examination. (Exhibit 4F). Dr.

Jordan noted, “Daily Living Skills are compromised by intellectual or psychological

function. Socially, the claimant[’s] functions are unusual. The claimant spends the majority

of [his] day playing video games, engaging in card games, and watching TV. This is a fairly

unusual young man who has evident problems with Attention Deficit Disorder and very

possibly something along the line of Asperger’s or even now more of a personality disorder.” 

Dr. Jordan diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, primarily inattentive subtype,

and borderline intellectual functioning. (R. 156). Dr. Jordan further observed that plaintiff

cannot manage his financial affairs, cannot function independently and needs some level of

supervision. (Id.). He also noted that:

In terms of vocation, the claimant’s ability to carry out and remember

instructions of a simple, one step nature is not compromised; however,

treatment is not being carried out which would address ADD issues and this

might make a huge difference. He certainly has the intellectual skills to do

labor type tasks but does respond slowly, is more responsive to visual stimuli,

and may be hampered by family pressures and low expectations.

In terms of vocation, the claimant’s ability to respond well to coworkers,

1

 It is not clear from the record whether plaintiff quit his job with Goodwill Industries or was

terminated from that job. See R. 34-35, 40-41.

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 4 of 14
supervision, and everyday work pressures is not unduly compromised. While

he would disagree with his sister [who accompanied him to the examination],

he maintained good eye contact with examiner and was able to relate history

fairly well. He needs medication for ADD.

(R. 157). Dr. Samuel Williams, a non-examining agency physician, prepared a psychiatric

review technique form and mental residual functional capacity assessment. (Exhibit 5F,

R. 158-75). 

On January 27, 2009, after the claim was denied at the initial administrative levels,

an ALJ conducted an administrative hearing, at which she took testimony from plaintiff, his

mother, and a vocational expert. At the hearing, plaintiff provided the ALJ with a

questionnaire and letter dated January 22, 2009 from Dr. Nelson Handel, plaintiff’s

psychiatrist. (Exhibit 8F, R. 192-94). The ALJ rendered a decision on February 25, 2009. 

She concluded that plaintiff suffered from the severe impairments of “borderline intellectual

functioning, ADHD, and autistic disorder.” (R. 16). She found that plaintiff’s impairments,

considered in combination, did not meet or equal the severity of any of the impairments in

the “listings.” She determined that plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to:

perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following

nonexertional limitations: claimant is able to understand and remember simple

instructions; claimant is able to carry out short and simple instructions and

attend and concentrate for two hour periods on simple tasks with customary

breaks and rest during the regular workday; claimant’s interaction and contact

with the general public should be casual and non-confronting; changes in the

workplace should be gradually and infrequently introduced; and claimant may

need assistance in setting realistic goals and making plans.

(R. 18). She concluded that plaintiff had no past relevant work, since his employment with

Goodwill Industries was “more than likely a sheltered work environment.” (R. 22). She

5

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 5 of 14
determined that, considering plaintiff’s age, education, work experience and residual

functional capacity, plaintiff can perform jobs which exist in significant numbers in the

national economy and, thus, that he is not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. (R.

23). On September 1, 2009, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review and,

accordingly, the decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the Commissioner.

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is narrowly circumscribed. The

court does not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. 

Rather, the court examines the administrative decision and scrutinizes the record as a whole

to determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s factual findings. Davis v.

Shalala, 985 F.2d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 1993); Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145

(11th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence consists of such “relevant evidence as a reasonable

person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Cornelius, 936 F.2d at 1145. 

Factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence must be upheld by the court. The

ALJ’s legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo because no presumption of validity

attaches to the ALJ’s determination of the proper legal standards to be applied. Davis, 985

F.2d at 531. If the court finds an error in the ALJ’s application of the law, or if the ALJ fails

to provide the court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis

has been conducted, the ALJ’s decision must be reversed. Cornelius, 936 F.2d at 1145-46.

DISCUSSION

The plaintiff challenges the Commissioner’s decision, arguing that the decision is due

6

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 6 of 14
to be reversed because the ALJ did not show good cause for failing to give greater weight

to the opinion of plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Handel. The form completed by Dr.

Handel provides his estimate of plaintiff’s degree of impairment in eighteen functional areas,

on a four-point scale ranging from “mild” to “extreme.” Dr. Handel circled “extreme” for

his rating of the degree of impairment of plaintiff’s ability to understand, remember and

carry out complex instructions. He rated plaintiff’s impairment as “marked” for: (1) his

ability to ask simple questions or request assistance; (2) his daily activities (ability to attend

meetings such as church, school, or lodge; work around the house; socialize with friends and

neighbors); (3) his ability to understand, remember and carry out simple instructions and

repetitive tasks; (4) his ability to maintain attention and concentration for extended periods;

(5) his ability to sustain a routine without special supervision; (6) his ability to complete a

normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms

and to perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest

periods; and (7) his ability to respond appropriately to changes in the work setting. In all

other listed areas, Dr. Handel rated plaintiff’s degree of impairment as “moderate.” (R. 193-

94). “If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s

impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ

must give it controlling weight.” Roth v. Astrue, 249 Fed. Appx. 167, 168 (11th Cir.

2007)(unpublished opinion)(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). In this case, plaintiff did not

provide Dr. Handel’s treatment notes to the ALJ. As noted above, Dr. Handel expressed his

7

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 7 of 14
opinion about plaintiff’s limitations by selecting “moderate,” “marked,” or “extreme” in

response to eighteen listed functions. Although the form provides a space for comments, Dr.

Handel did not write anything in that section of the form. In an accompanying letter, Dr.

Handel lists plaintiff’s diagnoses and treatment plan, but includes no narrative explaining his

conclusions as to plaintiff’s specific functional limitations. (R. 192-95).2

 The evidence from

Dr. Handel is insufficient to demonstrate that his opinion “is well-supported by medically

acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and the ALJ did not err,

accordingly, in failing to give the opinion controlling weight.

“If the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, . . . ‘the

testimony of a treating physician must be given substantial or considerable weight unless

“good cause” is shown to the contrary.’” Id. (citing Crawford v. Commissioner, 363 F.3d

1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004)). “If the ALJ finds such good cause and disregards or accords

less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, he must clearly articulate his reasoning, and

the failure to do so is reversible error.” Pritchett v. Commissioner, Social Security Admin,

315 Fed. Appx. 806 (11th Cir. 2009)(unpublished opinion)(citing MacGregor v. Bowen, 786

F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986)). The ALJ explained that she gave “less weight” to the

opinion of Dr. Handel because: (1) he had only been treating the plaintiff for two months;

(2) the limitations set forth in the questionnaire he completed are “not consistent with records

2

 Dr. Handel’s diagnoses include autistic disorder, ADHD, impulse control disorder, post-traumatic

stress disorder, and sleep disturbance, and “rule out” diagnoses of expressive language disorder, dissociative

disorder, obsessive-compulsive (hoarding), and schizoid personality. His treatment plan includes counseling,

medication (Strattera) and recommended IQ and achievement testing and speech and language evaluation. 

(R. 192).

8

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 8 of 14
that span over a period of five years[;]” (3) the limitations imposed by Dr. Handel are

inconsistent with plaintiff’s own testimony; and (4) the limitations are inconsistent with the

testimony of plaintiff’s mother that plaintiff is able to understand, remember and carry out

simple one and two step tasks. 

Plaintiff testified that he had been seeing Dr. Handel for two months – at first he was

to return every three weeks, then monthly and, by the time of the hearing, after six months. 

 (R. 36). As the Commissioner argues, this testimony indicates that the plaintiff had seen Dr.

Handel only three times during the two months of treatment. Where the ALJ does not give

a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ is required to consider the length of

the treating relationship and the frequency of examination in determining how much weight

to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(d)(2), (d)(2)(i)(“Generally, the longer a treating

source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more

weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion. When the treating source has seen you

a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your

impairment, we will give the source’s opinion more weight than we would give it if it were

from a nontreating source.”).

Dr. Handel estimated that plaintiff has a “marked” degree of impairment in his ability

to understand, remember and carry out even simple instructions and repetitive tasks, and that

he also has a “marked” degree of restriction of his activities of daily living, including ability

to attend meetings, work around the house, or socialize with friends and neighbors. 

However, plaintiff’s mother testified that plaintiff is now able to “handle a two-step task.” 

9

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 9 of 14
(R. 43). She indicated that he does not have friends visit him at home or go out with friends,

but that he has “maybe two friends.” (R. 40). Plaintiff testified that, although he “sometimes”

must be reminded, he performs household chores including mowing the lawn, taking out the

trash and vacuuming. (R. 37). He was able to obtain a driver’s license by taking a written

test, but does not drive because he does not have a car. (R. 37-38). He is able to cook

“simple meals” like grilled cheese, and he also cooks things in the microwave. (R. 38). He

does laundry, and he goes shopping by himself once a week. He plays video games and

reads the instructions for the video games. (R. 124). He goes to a card shop to engage in

card games, and volunteers at the library to help older patrons to use the internet. (R. 125). 

This evidence provides substantial support for the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Handel’s

“marked” limitations as to even simple tasks and daily activities are inconsistent with

plaintiff’s and his mother’s testimony regarding his activities.3, 4, 5

3

 The ALJ’s RFC determination includes a limitation to simple instructions and tasks, and is not

inconsistent with Dr. Handel’s opinion that plaintiff suffers “extreme” limitations in his ability to understand,

remember, and carry out complex tasks.

4

 Dr. Handel rated plaintiff’s level of impairment as “moderate” in the areas of “ability to interact

appropriately with the general public,” “ability to get along with co-workers or peers,” “constriction of

interests,” “ability to respond to customary work pressures,”“ability to respond appropriately to supervision,”

and “degree of deterioration of personal habits.” (R. 193-94). Dr. Handel’s ratings in these areas are

consistent with the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff suffers from “moderate” limitations in social functioning,

despite the fact that Dr. Handel estimated that plaintiff has a “marked” limitation in his ability to ask simple

questions or request assistance. (R. 20, 173, 193).

5

 Plaintiff’s mother testified that plaintiff was frustrated with his stocker job because he could not

perform tasks at the speed his employer wanted, that she has to remind him to perform household tasks, that

no one will hire him because he does not have a graduation diploma, that he gets along with people “for the

most part” but that she thinks the reason he doesn’t have many friends is that “he cannot keep up his end of

the conversation to make it pleasant,” and that she is “a little tired of telling him that he needs to brush his

teeth and he needs to use soap and shampoo and, you know, daily things, everyday normal things that

everybody else knows already.” (R. 41-44).

10

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 10 of 14
The largest difference between the ALJ’s conclusions and Dr. Handel’s responses on

the questionnaire is in the area of “concentration, persistence or pace.” In the functions

relating to this area, Dr. Handel generally rated plaintiff’s limitations as “marked,” (i.e., as

seriously interfering with the plaintiff’s ability to function ) – and, as to complex instructions,

“extreme” – while the ALJ rated plaintiff’s overall limitation in this area as “moderate.” 

(See responses to ## 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 on the questionnaire, R. 193-94; R. 20-21). As noted

above, regarding “simple” instructions and tasks, Dr. Handel’s responses are inconsistent

with the plaintiff’s and his mother’s descriptions of his abilities. See Leiter v. Astrue, 2010

WL 1794177, *3-4 (11th Cir. May 6, 2010)(“[T]he ALJ is not required to give a treating

physician’s opinion considerable weight if the claimant’s own testimony regarding [his] daily

activities contradicts that opinion.”)(citation omitted). Regarding complex instructions, the

ALJ’s determination of “moderate” impairment translated to an RFC which limits plaintiff

to simple instructions and tasks and, thus, does not conflict with Dr. Handel’s rating. See

n. 3, supra. One of the ALJ’s reasons for giving Dr. Handel’s opinion “less weight” is that

it conflicts with the records of plaintiff’s functioning over a five-year span. The ALJ noted

that there is “no question that the claimant is restricted in his ability to concentrate.” She

further observed, however, that claimant reported improvement in his ability to concentrate

when he is on medication to treat ADHD. (R. 20). While the plaintiff had previously

discontinued medication for financial reasons, he testified at the hearing that he had been

taking Strattera, prescribed by Dr. Handel, for two months and that it helps his concentration

“a little.” (R. 36). Plaintiff’s mother also testified that the medication is helping him to the

11

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 11 of 14
extent that he is able to perform a two-step task. (R. 43). As noted above, when Dr. Shakir

Meghani treated plaintiff on referral from Wiregrass Rehabilitation Center, he prescribed

Concerta for plaintiff’s ADD; at a follow-up appointment, plaintiff’s mother reported that

“he follows, instructions, remembers to follow instructions, and there is a definite

improvement. He is working now at SEAMC, janitorial work, and he is doing fairly good

with that.” (R. 152). 

Additionally, plaintiff’s employment counselor at Wiregrass Rehabilitation Center

noted in July 2003 that, after plaintiff’s physician had placed him on medication, plaintiff’s

mother reported improvement and, also, that plaintiff showed progress with his training in

the Employee Development Program. She wrote that plaintiff “was able to follow

instructions and perform tasks correctly.” (R. 153-54). To the extent that Dr. Handel’s

questionnaire responses impose more than moderate limitations of concentration, persistence

and pace, the records cited by the ALJ (R. 20-21) provide substantial evidence to support the

ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Handel’s restrictions are inconsistent with other evidence spanning

a five-year period.

The ALJ articulated her reasons for giving Dr. Handel’s opinion “less weight” than

that assigned to the opinions of consultative examiners and a non-examining state agency

physician. These reasons are supported by substantial evidence and demonstrate good cause

for rejecting Dr. Handel’s opinion, to the extent that his opinion equates to more than

moderate limitations in the four functional areas of mental functioning rated by the ALJ. 

Accordingly, the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Handel’s opinion does not constitute reversible

12

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 12 of 14
error.6

CONCLUSION

Upon review of the record as a whole, the court concludes that the decision of the

Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and proper application of the law and,

accordingly, that it is due to be affirmed. A separate judgment will be entered. 

Done, this 17th day of May, 2010.

6

 The plaintiff argues that Dr. Handel’s opinion “find[s] support in the opinions of both Dr. Jordan

and Dr. Cline,” and in plaintiff’s past work history. Plaintiff points to, inter alia, Dr. Cline’s statement in

a March 2002 evaluation – when plaintiff was eighteen years old – that “if [plaintiff] is to be successful in

the work place, he is going to need help with social skills,” that he “remembered two of three words after a

delay but could not make change from $18” and that he “does have difficulty concentrating.” (Doc. # 13,

pp. 6-7, 8; Exhibit 1F, Report of March 26, 2002 evaluation by Dr. Cline). The court notes, again, that the

ALJ found plaintiff to have moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace and to be limited to

“short and simple instructions” and “simple tasks.” (R. 18-21). Additionally, the ALJ found plaintiff to have

moderate limitations in social functioning, and the RFC determination reflected these limitations. (Id.). 

Further, the record reflects that the plaintiff did, after Dr. Cline’s evaluation, receive assistance with social

skills. He entered the Wiregrass Rehabilitation Center’s Employee Development Program a few weeks after

Dr. Cline’s evaluation; the goals established for him included “[developing] skills for effective

communication and interaction with co-workers and supervisors.” The report of plaintiff’s employment

counselor reflects that this goal was “completed,” and that “[h]is grooming improved as did his interaction

skills.” (Exhibit 3F, p. 153). 

The plaintiff also cites Dr. Jordan’s opinion that the plaintiff “has evident problems with Attention

Deficit Disorder and very possibly something along the line of Asperger’s or even now more of a personality

disorder” and argues that Dr. Jordan’s opinion “lends support to Dr. Handel’s finding of autism, as

Asperger’s syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder.” (Doc. # 13, p. 8; Exhibit 4F, p. 156). Although the

ALJ was not fully convinced of the diagnosis of autism, she nevertheless accepted it and found “autistic

disorder” to be one of plaintiff’s severe impairments. (R. 16-17). She found, as a result, that plaintiff has

“moderate difficulties with social functioning.” (R. 19). The court does not here address all of the evidence

cited by the plaintiff because – upon consideration of the entire record, including the evidence on which the

plaintiff relies – the court nevertheless concludes that the ALJ’s stated reasons for giving Dr. Handel’s

opinion “less weight” are supported by substantial evidence and demonstrate good cause. It does not matter,

for purposes of this court’s review, that the record could also have supported a decision to accord Dr.

Handel’s opinion more weight. See Tagle v. Astrue, 279 Fed. Appx. 827, 828 (11th Cir. 2008)(“We do not

reweigh evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner, but instead review the entire

record to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.”)(citing

Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145 (11th Cir.1991)). 

13

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 13 of 14
/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

Case 1:09-cv-01004-SRW Document 18 Filed 05/17/10 Page 14 of 14