Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00667/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00667-0/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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

MONICA LASHON CHAMBERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:14cv667-SRW

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, )

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Monica LaShon Chambers commenced this action on July 10, 2014, 

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

Commissioner denying her claim for a period of disability, disability insurance, and 

supplementary security income benefits. On October 22, 2013, the Administrative Law 

Judge (“ALJ”) issued an adverse decision.1 The Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request 

for review, and the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. This 

case is ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§405(g), 1383(c)(3). The parties have 

consented to entry of final judgment by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). For the reasons stated herein, the court finds that the Commissioner’s ruling is due 

to be reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.

																																																												 1

		Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing before the ALJ.

Case 3:14-cv-00667-SRW Document 22 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 8
2

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

function of this court is to determine whether the decision of the Commissioner is 

supported by substantial evidence and whether proper legal standards were applied. 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 

(11th Cir. 2002). This court must “scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the 

decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Bloodsworth v. 

Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983). Substantial evidence is “such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. It 

is “more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Id. A reviewing court “may not 

decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] decision for that of the 

[Commissioner].” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). In other words, 

this court is prohibited from reviewing the Commissioner’s findings of fact de novo, even 

where a preponderance of the evidence supports alternative conclusions.

While the court must uphold factual findings that are supported by substantial 

evidence, it reviews the ALJ’s legal conclusions de novo because no presumption of 

validity attaches to the ALJ’s determination of the proper legal standards to be applied. 

Davis v. Shalala, 985 F.2d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 1993). 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, it must reverse the ALJ’s 

decision. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991).

Case 3:14-cv-00667-SRW Document 22 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 8
3

To qualify for disability benefits and establish his or her entitlement for a period of 

disability, a claimant must be disabled as defined by the Social Security Act and the 

Regulations promulgated thereunder. The Regulations define “disabled” as “the inability 

to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or 

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

expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months.” 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1505(a). To establish an entitlement to disability benefits, a claimant must provide 

evidence about a “physical or mental impairment” that “must result from anatomical, 

physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable 

clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508. 

The Regulations provide a five-step process for determining whether a claimant is 

disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The Commissioner must determine in sequence:

(1) whether the claimant is currently employed;

(2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment;

(3) whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment 

listed by the Commissioner;

(4) whether the claimant can perform his or her past work; and

(5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work in the 

national economy.

Pope v. Shalala, 998 F.2d 473, 477 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing to formerly applicable C.F.R. 

section), overruled on other grounds by Johnson v. Apfel, 189 F.3d 561, 562-63 (7th Cir. 

1999); accord McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986). The sequential 

analysis goes as follows:

Case 3:14-cv-00667-SRW Document 22 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 8
4

Once the claimant has satisfied steps One and Two, she will 

automatically be found disabled if she suffers from a listed impairment. If 

the claimant does not have a listed impairment but cannot perform her work, 

the burden shifts to the [Commissioner] to show that the claimant can 

perform some other job. 

Pope, 998 F.2d at 477; accord Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir. 1995). The 

Commissioner must further show that such work exists in the national economy in 

significant numbers. Id.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges a disability onset date of June 5, 2012. Plaintiff was 42 years old 

when the ALJ issued his adverse decision. The ALJ determined that plaintiff has not 

worked since being terminated from her job as a certified nursing assistant in May 2012. 

Plaintiff claimed that she is unable to work due to breast cancer, heart issues, and a thyroid 

condition. The ALJ found that plaintiff has the following severe impairments: breast cancer 

bilateral with attendant surgeries, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and plastic surgeries; 

obesity; depression, and anxiety disorder NOS. The ALJ concluded that the plaintiff does 

not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets a listed impairment. 

The ALJ developed a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) that reflects the 

conclusion that plaintiff can perform sedentary work with certain limitations. In that RFC, 

the ALJ determined that plaintiff could not return to her past work as a nursing assistant; 

however, a vocational expert identified jobs with significant numbers in the local and 

national economy that plaintiff could perform. The ALJ then determined that plaintiff is 

not disabled.

Case 3:14-cv-00667-SRW Document 22 Filed 03/30/16 Page 4 of 8
5

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by finding that she does not meet a listed 

impairment. She contends that her severe impairment of breast cancer satisfies 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404, subpart P, app.1, § 13.10, and that the ALJ committed reversible error by failing to 

consider whether plaintiff meets that listing. As discussed below, the court finds that 

plaintiff’s argument has merit. Because the ALJ’s error necessitates the reversal of the 

Commissioner’s final decision and remand for further proceedings, the court does not 

examine plaintiff’s additional arguments in support of the present appeal.2 See Zellars v. 

Colvin, No. CV 113–146, 2014 WL 4775943, at *8 n.5 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 24, 2014) (because 

the court recommended remand and reconsideration of whether a plaintiff meets a listing 

requirement, “it need not address [p]laintiff’s additional arguments” in favor of reversal of 

the Commissioner’s decision) (citing Pendley v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 1561, 1563 (11th Cir. 

1985) (per curiam)).

An ALJ is obligated to provide a written decision “contain[ing] a statement of the 

case ... setting forth a discussion of the evidence, and stating the Commissioner’s 

determination and the reason or reasons upon which it is based.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1). 

There are elements that the written decision must contain to be sufficient as a matter of 

law. “What is required is that the ALJ state specifically the weight accorded to each item 

																																																												 2

	 	Plaintiff argues that (1) the ALJ failed to develop the medical evidence completely as to plaintiff’s 

diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer; (2) the ALJ should have found hidradenitis to be a severe 

impairment; (3) upon finding hidradenitis to be a severe impairment, the ALJ was obligated to consider 

whether plaintiff meets Listing § 8.06; (4) the RFC is erroneous because it does not include a crouching 

restriction; and (5) remand is appropriate so the ALJ can consider “new” evidence in the form of a pathology 

report dated July 26, 2012, showing a final diagnosis of residular lobular carcinoma in situ on plaintiff’s 

right breast. 

Case 3:14-cv-00667-SRW Document 22 Filed 03/30/16 Page 5 of 8
6

of evidence and why he reached that decision. In the absence of such a statement, it is 

impossible for a reviewing court to determine whether the ultimate decision on the merits 

of the claim is rational and supported by substantial evidence.” Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 

F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981). The Eleventh Circuit has held that it is an error of law for 

an ALJ to fail to consider whether a claimant meets a listing requirement in making a 

disability determination. See Todd v. Heckler, 736 F.2d 641, 642 (11th Cir. 1984). “[I]f 

a claimant’s condition meets an impairment set forth in the listings, the claimant is 

adjudged disabled without considering age, education, and work experience[,]” and 

“further inquiry pursuant to the analysis ceases.” Hutchison v. Bowen, 787 F.2d 1461, 

1463 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)).

Here, the ALJ’s written decision is silent concerning Listing § 13.10, despite the

ALJ’s finding that plaintiff has the severe impairment of breast cancer. (Doc. # 18-2 at pp. 

12, 14-16). That finding of a severe impairment mandates that the ALJ proceed to the next 

step in the sequential process to determine whether plaintiff’s breast cancer satisfies a 

listing. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). There was evidence in the Commissioner’s 

record at the time of the hearing that merited consideration and findings by the ALJ as to 

whether Listing § 13.10 was satisfied. 

The Commissioner, however, asserts that the ALJ was under no obligation to 

discuss Listing § 13.10. Early in the plaintiff’s hearing, the ALJ posed the following 

question to plaintiff’s counsel: “Well, counsel, I’ve reviewed the applicable listing. Is it 

your position that the listing is met? I do not believe I saw the facts necessary for the listing 

to be met, but do you have a different position on it?” (Doc. # 18-2 at p. 39). Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:14-cv-00667-SRW Document 22 Filed 03/30/16 Page 6 of 8
7

counsel responded, “I do not believe we made the listing.” (Id.). The Commissioner argues 

that plaintiff’s counsel’s response is unequivocal and waives the ALJ’s obligation under 

the Social Security regulations and Eleventh Circuit precedent to consider whether 

plaintiff’s severe impairments meet a listing. However, the Commissioner does not provide 

any case law or statutory authority in support of this argument. Further, the court does not 

find plaintiff’s counsel’s personal expression of doubt concerning whether plaintiff met the 

listing to be sufficient to relieve the ALJ of his responsibility to address the question. The 

ALJ’s obligation to proceed through the five-step sequence is mandatory. See Todd, 736 

F.2d at 642; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). The court need not decide if, whether, and 

under what circumstances a waiver might occur. In the present case, the ALJ’s obligation 

to proceed through each step of the sequential analysis was not waived.

The Commissioner also argues that the ALJ implicitly addressed Listing § 13.10 in 

the written decision. See Davenport v. Astrue, 403 Fed. App’x 352, 354 (11th Cir. 2010) 

(“the ALJ’s findings as to whether a claimant meets a listing may be implied from the 

record”) (citing Hutchison v. Bowen, 787 F.2d 1461, 1463 (11th Cir. 1986)). Assuming,

without deciding, that an ALJ can implicitly determine whether a plaintiff meets a listing, 

there is not sufficient information in the ALJ’s written decision to suggest any implication 

regarding § 13.10. With the exception of the ALJ’s statement at the hearing about 

considering all listings, the parties have not identified, and the court could not locate,

anything in the record from which a finding about Listing § 13.10 can be inferred. 

Because the ALJ’s decision is silent regarding Listing § 13.10, the record is 

insufficient for the court to assess whether the ALJ considered § 13.10, or, if he considered 

Case 3:14-cv-00667-SRW Document 22 Filed 03/30/16 Page 7 of 8
8

the listing and made an adverse finding, whether his conclusion is based on substantial 

evidence and is consistent with controlling law. The ALJ committed a reversible error by 

failing to consider § 13.10. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed above, the decision of the Commissioner 

will be REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) by

separate judgment so that the Commissioner can conduct additional proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. In particular, the Commissioner shall consider whether the plaintiff’s 

severe impairment of breast cancer meets the Listing § 13.10.

DONE, this the 30th day of March, 2016.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

Susan Russ Walker

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00667-SRW Document 22 Filed 03/30/16 Page 8 of 8