Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_18-cv-00346/USCOURTS-alnd-5_18-cv-00346-0/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)

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

ROGER DALE MANNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 5:18-cv-00346-LCB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff Roger Manning filed a complaint (Doc. 1) 

seeking judicial review of an adverse final decision of the Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). The Commissioner filed an answer to the complaint on June 20, 2018. (Doc. 

7). The Plaintiff filed a brief in support of his position on September 6, 2018, (Doc. 

11), and the Commissioner filed a brief in support of the decision on October 9, 

2018. (Doc. 11). Therefore, this issue is ripe for review. For the following reasons 

stated below, the final decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

I. BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff protectively filed for a period of disability and disability 

insurance benefits on August 6, 2014. (R. 11). He alleged that his disability began 

FILED

 2020 Jan-13 PM 03:15

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 12
2

on June 12, 2013. Id. The Plaintiff’s claim for benefits was denied on January 12, 

2015, and the he subsequently filed a request for a hearing in front of an 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on February 5, 2015. Id. The Plaintiff appeared 

before ALJ Patrick Digby on June 7, 2017. Id. The Plaintiff testified at the hearing 

and was questioned by his attorney and the ALJ. (R. 45, 51). Vocational Expert 

Marilyn J. Stroud also testified at the hearing. (R. 54). The ALJ issued his opinion 

on July 21, 2017. (R. 24). When he issued his opinion, the ALJ used the five-step 

evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled. (R. 12). The ALJ 

made the following determinations:

1. The Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security 

Act through December 31, 2018. (R. 13). 

2. The Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 12, 

2013, the alleged onset date of disability. Id.

3. The Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: migraine headaches 

and degenerative disk disease. Id.

4. The Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments 

that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments 

in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. 15). 

5. The Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light 

work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). He can occasionally climb ramps 

or stairs. He can also balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. He can 

never climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. He must avoid: concentrated 

exposure to extreme heat, cold, heat, wetness, humidity, and vibration; 

exposure to hazardous machinery; and unprotected heights and uneven 

terrain. Id.

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 12
3

6. The Plaintiff can perform past relevant work as: a production manager, a 

position consistent with Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) 

#123.117-014; computer operator, DOT # 213.362-010; production 

coordinator, DOT #211.167-018; and sales representative, data processing 

services, DOT #251.157-014. (R. 23).

7. The Plaintiff has not been under a disability as defined in the Social 

Security Act, from June 12, 2013, through July 21, 2017. Id. 

After the ALJ denied his claim, The Plaintiff requested an appeal to the 

Appeals Council and was denied on January 8, 2018. (R. 1). At that point, the ALJ’s 

decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Henry v. Comm’r of Soc. 

Sec., 802 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2015). The Plaintiff filed this action on March 

5, 2018. (Doc. 1).

II. DISCUSSION

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) is authorized to pay 

Supplemental Security Insurance (“SSI”) and disability insurance to claimants that 

have a disability. Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1358 (11th 

Cir. 2018). Title II of the Social Security Act defines disability as “the inability to 

engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 

physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or that has 

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 

Id. at 1358-59, citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 (d)(1)(A). 

A. Standard of Review

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 12
4

The Court reviews “de novo the legal principles upon which the ALJ relied, 

but [is] limited to assessing whether the ALJ’s resulting decision is supported by 

substantial evidence.” Henry, 802 F.3d at 1266-67. “Substantial evidence is more 

than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence that a reasonable person would support 

its conclusion.” Winshel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 

2011). The Court does not “decide facts anew, mak[e] credibility determinations, or 

reweigh the evidence.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). 

The Court instead “must scrutinize the record as a whole in determining whether the 

ALJ reached a reasonable decision.” Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 

(11th Cir. 1983). 

B. Five Step Sequential Evaluation

To determine if a claimant has a disability, the SSA regulations mandate that 

an ALJ must follow a five-step sequential evaluation while evaluating a disability 

claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920. Pursuant to the regulations, the ALJ 

must proceed with his analysis as follows:

1. Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity? If “yes” the claimant 

is not disabled, and the analysis ends here. If the answer is “no,” proceed to 

the next step of the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

2. Does the claimant have a medically determinable physical or mental 

impairment or combination of impairments that meets the duration 

requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509? If “no,” the claimant is not disabled. 

If “yes,” proceed to the next step of the analysis. Id.

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 12
5

3. Does the claimant have an impairment that equals a listed impairment in 20 

C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P Appendix 1 and meets the durational requirements of 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1509? If “yes” the claimant is disabled. If “no,” proceed to 

the next step of the analysis. Id.

4. Does the claimant have the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to return to 

past relevant work? If “yes” the claimant is not disabled. If no, proceed to the 

final step of the analysis. Id.

5. Does the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience allow him or 

her to make an adjustment to other work? If “no,” the claimant is disabled. If 

“yes,” the claimant is not disabled. Id.

Initially, the claimant bears the burden of proof regarding the first four steps 

of the above evaluation. Washington, 906 F.3d at 1359. The claimant carries a 

particularly heavy burden when showing why he or she cannot engage in past 

relevant work. Id. After the fourth step, the burden then shifts to the Commissioner 

to determine if there are jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 

Id. However, while the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five, the burden 

ultimately falls to the claimant to show a disability exists. Id., citing Doughty v. 

Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1280 (11th Cir. 2001). 

C. The Plaintiff’s Contentions

The Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred by finding he could return to his past 

relevant work. (Doc. 11, p. 4). First, he argues the ALJ failed to evaluate his 

subjective pain testimony consistent with the standard set forth in Hale v. Bowen, 

831 F.2d 1007, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987). Next, The Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to 

give proper weight to his treating physician’s opinions. (Doc. 11, p. 11). Finally, he 

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 12
6

claims the ALJ failed to develop the record. (Doc. 11, p. 14). The Court will address 

each of these contentions in turn.

1. The ALJ did not err when considering the Plaintiff’s allegations about 

his pain.

The Plaintiff first argues the ALJ did not properly credit his testimony 

regarding the pain migraine headaches cause him. (Doc. 11, p. 4-5). He alleges that 

the ALJ’s decision to discount his pain testimony is not supported by substantial 

evidence. (Doc. 11, p. 6). He supports this contention with many citations from the 

record which documented the Plaintiff experiencing extreme pain because of his 

headaches. (Doc. 11, p. 8). Further, the Plaintiff also notes that he visited specialists 

at Vanderbilt and Duke to determine the cause of his migraines. (Doc. 11, p. 6). In 

his decision, the ALJ acknowledged the record reflects the Plaintiff’s condition has 

been consistent and painful. (R. 16). However, he also found the Plaintiff’s claims 

about the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of his symptoms were not 

entirely credible. Id. He supported his finding with evidence such as contradictory 

medical records, the Plaintiff’s daily activities, and inconsistent evidence from Dr. 

James Thacker, the Plaintiff’s treating physician1

. (R. 16-23).

If an ALJ “fails to articulate reasons for refusing to credit a claimant’s 

subjective pain testimony, then [the ALJ], as a matter of law, has accepted the 

 1 The Plaintiff’s argument in support of Dr. Thacker’s findings will be addressed in the next 

section of this opinion.

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 6 of 12
7

testimony as true.” Hale, 821 F.2d at 1012. “Implicit in this rule is the requirement 

that such articulation of reasons by the [ALJ] be supported by substantial evidence.” 

Id. When evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ 

will consider factors such as: the claimant’s daily activities, side effects of the 

claimant’s medication, and other factors concerning functional limitations. See 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i-vii). See also SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304 at *6-8. A 

“claimant must satisfy two parts of a three-part test showing: (1) evidence of an 

underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence 

confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined 

medical condition can give rise to the claimed pain” to establish a disability based 

on pain. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). A claimant’s 

statements about his or her pain will not suffice to establish a disability exists. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1529(b).

Here, the ALJ’s finding that the Plaintiff’s pain testimony was not credible is 

supported by substantial evidence. Indeed, the Plaintiff’s record reflected that he 

continued to suffer from painful migraine headaches throughout the past few years. 

See (R. 318, 485, 539, 574, 609, 627). However, while the Plaintiff has presented 

evidence that he has consistent migraines, other evidence in the record supports the

ALJ’s conclusion. The Plaintiff’s extensive medical reports indicate that while his

pain was consistent, he noted that his activity level remained consistently high. For 

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 7 of 12
8

example, throughout 2017, he reported his “current daily activity level” as “8 out of 

10” or “7 out of 10.” See (R. 882, 890, 907, 911, 918, 936, 948). Additionally, even 

though the Plaintiff described his medicine as ineffective and experienced 

debilitating side effects, he reported both a reduction in his pain and that the side 

effects from the medication were manageable. See (R. 870, 886, 893, 903, 928). This 

was after the record reflected the Plaintiff had previously experienced dizziness and 

falling because of his medication. (R. 728, 732). Further, the Plaintiff’s physical 

examinations related to his migraines showed generally normal results. See (R. 725, 

734, 745, 877, 888, 912). Accordingly, while the Plaintiff presented evidence that 

he experienced considerable pain with his migraines, substantial evidence supports 

the ALJ’s reasons for concluding that the Plaintiff’s pain testimony was not credible.

2. The ALJ did not err when giving less weight to the treating physician’s 

opinion.

The Plaintiff argues next that the ALJ did not clearly articulate good cause for 

discrediting the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. James Thacker. (Doc. 11, p. 

11). Specifically, the Plaintiff argues that the ALJ incorrectly gave less weight to Dr. 

Thacker’s opinions from October 2014; March 2017; and May 2017. (Doc. 11, p. 

12). 

Typically, an ALJ will give more weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating 

physician. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating physician’s opinion “must be given 

substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.”

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 8 of 12
9

Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004). “Good cause [to discount 

the treating physician’s opinion] exists when (1) the treating physician’s opinion was 

not bolstered by the evidence, (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding, or (3) 

the treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with his own medical 

records.” Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1259 (11th Cir. 2019). 

“[T]he ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary 

finding.” Hand v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2019 WL 4447206 at *3 (11th Cir. 2019) quoting

Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 280 (11th Cir. 1987).

a. October 2014 Opinion

The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Thacker’s October 2014 questionnaire 

response because he found that the physician’s assessment was not supported by the 

record and he did not examine the Plaintiff when completing the form. (R. 18). The 

ALJ also gave this assessment less weight because Dr. Thacker did not refer the 

Plaintiff to a headache specialist. Id. Dr. Thacker completed a Physician Headache 

Questionnaire and noted that the Plaintiff could return to work “when the pain is 

better under control,” but could not currently return to full or part time employment. 

(R. 866). Part of Dr. Thacker’s reasoning that the Plaintiff could not work was based 

on the response the Plaintiff gave in his self-reported Migraine Disability 

Assessment Test, or (“MIDAS”). In the assessment, the Plaintiff’s responses placed 

him in the “severe disability” category. As the Court noted above, a claimant’s 

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 9 of 12
10

subjective statements alone will not show he or she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1529(b). Therefore, Dr. Thacker’s questionnaire responses must be supported 

by more than the Plaintiff’s subjective claims. 

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discount this opinion. For 

example, while the Plaintiff consistently reported his headache pain, his physical 

examinations during this time showed generally normal results including normal 

gait, muscle strength, ability to concentrate, and memory. See (R. 675, 679, 686, 

690, 699, 715). Additionally, the medical records support that the Plaintiff’s pain 

regiment was helping control his discomfort. See (R. 687, 691, 728). Even though

the ALJ noted that Dr. Thacker did not refer the Plaintiff to a headache specialist, 

the record reflects he did refer the Plaintiff to a headache specialist in 2016. (R. 250).

However, because this one finding does not “contradict the ALJ’s ultimate findings,” 

it is harmless error. Caldwell v. Barnhart, 261 F. App’x 188, 190 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision to give less weight to Dr. Thacker’s October 2014 

opinion is supported by substantial evidence. 

b. March 2017 Opinion

The ALJ gave less weight to Dr. Thacker’s March 2017 opinion because it 

was not supported by the Plaintiff’s medical records in the entirety. (R. 18). Dr. 

Thacker completed another form and wrote the Plaintiff could not control his 

headaches “with medication [nor] interventional procedures.” (R. 861). The 

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 10 of 12
11

Plaintiff’s medical records provide that the Plaintiff did receive relief from his pain 

with medication. See (R. 890, 893, 903, 911, 914, 918, 923, 928, 939). Therefore, 

the ALJ’s decision to give less weight to Dr. Thacker’s March 2017 opinion is 

supported by substantial evidence. 

c. May 2017 Opinion

Finally, the ALJ gave less weight to Dr. Thacker’s May 2017 opinion because 

he found it was vague and was contradicted by his treatment records. (R. 17). Dr. 

Thacker’s supplement to an interrogatory stated the Plaintiff’s limitations include he 

“is not capable of more than short periods of sitting, standing, and walking due to 

his neck, shoulder, and back pain.” (R. 1071). Dr. Thacker also notes the Plaintiff 

cannot “persist at tasks to completion, work at any reasonable pace or maintain 

concentration and attention” because of the effects of the medication and his 

headaches. Id.

The ALJ was not required to give great weight to Dr. Thacker’s opinion about 

the Plaintiff’s work capability. A physician’s opinion about a claimant’s disability 

is not invalidated because the ALJ found his or her responses to be vague. Schink, 

935 F.3d at 1262. However, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding to give 

less weight to this opinion. As mentioned above, the Plaintiff’s medical record 

reflects that his physical examinations were largely normal, and his medications 

helped manage his pain related to his headaches. See Part II(C)(2)(a)&(b). Further, 

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 11 of 12
12

while the Plaintiff did discuss the negative side effects of his medication, the record 

provides the Plaintiff indicated the side effects were manageable. See Part II(C)(1).

Considering this evidence, the ALJ did not err when giving less weight to Dr. 

Thacker’s May 2017 opinion. 

 Towards the end of the Plaintiff’s argument, he alleges the ALJ erred by not 

fully developing the record. (Doc. 15, p. 12). “Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, 

without supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be 

waived.” N.L.R.B. v. McClain of Georgia, Inc., 138 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir. 

1998). In this case, the Plaintiff claims the ALJ failed to develop the record, but he 

did not provide the Court with a complete argument or evidence of this contention. 

Therefore, the Court finds that this issue is waived.

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is 

ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. A final 

judgment will be entered separately.

DONE and ORDERED this January 13, 2020.

 _________________________________

 LILES C. BURKE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:18-cv-00346-LCB Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 12 of 12