Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-00203/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-00203-0/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

RUDDY JAMES BOWENS,

Claimant,

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:14-CV-0203-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND

Claimant, Ruddy James Bowens, commenced this action on February 4, 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.

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.

Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253

(11th Cir. 1983).

FILED

 2014 Oct-06 PM 12:31

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-00203-CLS Document 15 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 7
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 and improperly evaluated his credibility and complaints of subjective

symptoms. Upon review of the record, the court concludes that claimant’s first

contention has merit.

The opinion of a treating physician “must be given substantial or considerable

weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d

1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Good cause 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 the doctor’s own medical records.” Id. Additionally,

the ALJ is not required to accept a conclusory statement from a medical source, even

a treating source, that a claimant is unable to work, because the decision whether a

claimant is disabled is not a medical opinion, but is a decision “reserved to the

Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(e).

Social Security regulations also provide that, in considering what weight to

give any medical opinion (regardless of whether it is from a treating or non-treating

physician), the Commissioner should evaluate: the extent of the examining or

2

Case 2:14-cv-00203-CLS Document 15 Filed 10/06/14 Page 2 of 7
treating relationship between the doctor and patient; whether the doctor’s opinion can

be supported by medical signs and laboratory findings; whether the opinion is

consistent with the record as a whole; the doctor’s specialization; and other factors. 

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). See also Wheeler v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 1073, 1075

(11th Cir. 1986) (“The weight afforded a physician’s conclusory statements depends

upon the extent to which they are supported by clinical or laboratory findings and are

consistent with other evidence as to claimant’s impairments.”). 

Dr. Jeremy Allen, claimant’s treating physician, completed a Physical

Capacities Evaluation form on April 27, 2012. Dr. Allen indicated that claimant

could lift and/or carry twenty pounds occasionally to ten poundsfrequently. He could

sit for a total of four hours, and stand and walk (combined) for a total of one hour,

rendering him unable to complete an entire eight-hour workday. Even so, claimant

did not require the use of an assistive device to ambulate. Claimant could

occasionally push and pull with his arms and legs, climb, balance, perform gross

manipulation, bend, stoop, and reach, and he could frequently perform fine

manipulation. He could operate motor vehicles, work around hazardous machinery,

and work around pulmonary irritants like dust, allergens, and fumes. The assessed

levels of severity of all of claimant’s impairments would apply even without

consideration of any substance abuse. On a Clinical Assessment of Pain form, Dr. 1

 Tr. 329. 1

3

Case 2:14-cv-00203-CLS Document 15 Filed 10/06/14 Page 3 of 7
Allen indicated that pain was present to such an extent asto be distracting to adequate

performance of daily activities or work. Physical activity would greatly increase

claimant’s pain to such a degree as to cause distraction from or total abandonment of

tasks. Claimant would experience some side effects from his prescribed medication,

but not to such a degree as to create serious problems in most instances. Dr. Allen

opined that claimant did have an underlying serious medical condition consistent with

the pain he experienced.

2

The ALJ afforded only little weight to Dr. Allen’s assessment. According to

the ALJ, “Dr. Allen indicated the claimant was not capable of working a full eight

hours in a day, which is contradicted by his treatment records where he has ordered

only conservative treatment and by the findings of the examining physician, Dr.

Kuremsky, and the State agency consultative physician.” These conclusions are in 3

accordance with applicable law, see Phillips, supra, but they are not supported by

substantial evidence of record. 

Dr. Marshall Kuremsky conducted a consultative physical examination on June

11, 2011. He noted that claimant used a walking stick to ambulate, and his gait was

slow, painful, and antalgic. He could get on and off the examination table, get up and

out of the chair, and dress and undress himself. He had point tenderness throughout

 Tr. 330-31. 2

 Tr. 66-67. 3

4

Case 2:14-cv-00203-CLS Document 15 Filed 10/06/14 Page 4 of 7
his lower back, and grip strength of 4/5 bilaterally with some questionable effort. The

examination revealed reduced range of motion in essentially all areas other than

hands, wrists, elbows, and hips. Claimant was unable to walk on his heels or toes,

squat, or perform heel-to-toe movements. Dr. Kuremsky’s overall impressions were

as follows:

Low back pain with bilateral right worse than left leg pain, stating

due to an atraumatic problem with his back. Unfortunately, not much

information accompanies this patient’s chart. He does have a couple of

notes from the emergency room over the last six months, where he has

appeared for chronic low back pain. He has been discharged

uneventfully from these with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory

medications. X-rays of the lumbar spine dated 8/20/2010 showed mild

degenerative change of the lumbar spine with normal appearing hips. 

MRI of the lumbar spine dated 8/20/2010 showed mild scoliosis with

degenerative changes at L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 with a broad based

disc bulge at L5-S1 with right foraminal stenosis. Again, these were

radiology interpretation reports only and were not films available for my

review. It is difficult to tell, whether this patient has had an

exacerbation of the preexisting condition, i.e., an acute worsening of a

herniated disc, etc., that would explain his symptoms, or whether this is

symptom[sic] which do not corroborate with imaging studies performed

in the past eight months.4

Dr. Kuremsky recommended “further clinical correlation” in order to follow up and

assess the degree of claimant’s impairments.

5

The ALJ did not explicitly state how much weight he afforded to Dr.

Kuremsky’s assessment, but he appearsto give it controlling, or at least great weight. 

 Tr. 286 (alterations supplied). 4

 T. 287. 5

5

Case 2:14-cv-00203-CLS Document 15 Filed 10/06/14 Page 5 of 7
The ALJ also did not explain why he thought Dr. Kuremsky’s opinion contradicted

Dr. Allen’s, and the court cannot discern any basis for that conclusion that would be

supported by the record. Dr. Kuremsky assessed significant limitationsin claimant’s

range of motion, gait, grip strength, and other movements, all of which would be

consistent with an inability to work a full eight-hour day, as Dr. Allen found. While

there may be some other evidence thatsupports the ALJ’s decision not to fully credit

Dr. Allen’s assessments, the ALJ appears to rely primarily upon Dr. Kuremsky’s

report. Because that report simply cannot be reconciled with the ALJ’s decision, this

court cannot conclude that the ALJ’s decision wassupported by substantial evidence. 

Remand is warranted for further consideration of the medical opinions of record,

further explanation of the weight afforded to Dr. Kuremsky’s assessment, further

explanation of why Dr. Allen’s assessment was rejected, and collection of additional

medical evidence, if necessary. 

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 thismemorandumopinion and

order. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this file.

6

Case 2:14-cv-00203-CLS Document 15 Filed 10/06/14 Page 6 of 7
DONE this 6th day of October, 2014.

______________________________

United States District Judge

7

Case 2:14-cv-00203-CLS Document 15 Filed 10/06/14 Page 7 of 7