Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_18-cv-01943/USCOURTS-alnd-5_18-cv-01943-0/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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NICOLE L. HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 5:18-cv-01943-ACA

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiff Nicole L. Hamilton appeals the decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security denying her claim for a period of disability and disability insurance 

benefits. Based on the court’s review of the administrative record and the parties’ 

briefs, the court WILL AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Hamilton applied for a period of disability and disability insurance 

benefits on November 11, 2014. (R. 253–54). Ms. Hamilton alleges that her

disability began on May 1, 2015.

1

 (R. 284–85). Initially, the Social Security 

 1 Ms. Hamilton’s original alleged onset date was September 1, 2006. (R. 253–54). She later amended it to May 

1, 2015. (R. 284–85). 

FILED

 2020 Mar-11 AM 09:18

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 12
2

Administration denied Ms. Hamilton’s application. (R. 148-52). Ms. Hamilton

requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (R. 33). She 

received two, each before a different ALJ. (R. 49–88, 89–117). The first ALJ found 

that a medical evaluation was necessary to determine Ms. Hamilton’s functional 

limitations. (R. 85). The second ALJ – proceeding without the benefit of a medical 

evaluation – issued an unfavorable decision dated September 29, 2017. (R. 10). The 

Appeals Council declined Ms. Hamilton’s request for review, although it corrected 

the ALJ’s misstatement about her date last insured. (R. 4). The Appeals Council’s 

denial of review makes the Commissioner’s decision final and ripe for the court’s 

judicial review. See 42 U.S.C § 405(g).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

a narrow one. The court “must determine whether the Commissioner’s decision is 

supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Winschel 

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks 

omitted). “Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will affirm the ALJ’s 

decision if there exists ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Henry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d 1264, 

1267 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178). The court may not 

“decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence,” or substitute its judgment for that of 

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 12
3

the ALJ. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (quotation marks omitted). The court must 

affirm “[e]ven if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings.” 

Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(quotation marks omitted). 

Despite the deferential standard for review of claims, the court must 

“‘scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable 

and supported by substantial evidence.’” Henry, 802 F.3d at 1267 (quoting 

MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986)). Moreover, the court 

must reverse the Commissioner’s decision if the ALJ does not apply the correct legal 

standards. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145–46 (11th Cir. 1991). The 

Commissioner is charged with the duty to weigh the evidence, resolve material 

conflicts in testimony, and determine the case accordingly. See Wheeler v. Heckler, 

784 F.2d 1073, 1075 (11th Cir. 1986). The ALJ’s decision must be affirmed where 

it is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Martin v. 

Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990); Baker o/b/o Baker v. Sullivan, 880 

F.2d 319, 321 (11th Cir. 1989). 

III. ALJ’S DECISION

To determine whether an individual is disabled, an ALJ follows a five-step 

sequential evaluation process. The ALJ considers:

(1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful 

activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or 

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 12
4

combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or 

equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of 

Impairments; (4) based on a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) 

assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past 

relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are 

significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant

can perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work 

experience.

Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.

Here, the ALJ found that Ms. Hamilton did not engage in substantial gainful 

activity during the period from her alleged onset date of May 1, 2015 through her 

date last insured. (R. 15). Next, the ALJ found that Ms. Hamilton has the following 

medically severe impairments: post fusions and chronic pain syndrome. (R. 15). 

The ALJ also found that Ms. Hamilton had the following non-severe impairment: 

affective mood disorder. (R. 15). But the ALJ found Ms. Hamilton did not have an 

impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a listed impairment 

in 20 C.F.R. Subpart 404, Appendix 1. (R. 17). 

After considering the evidence of record, the ALJ determined that Ms.

Hamilton had the residual functional capacity:

to lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; and 

sit 6 of 8 hours and no more than 1 hour at a time without changing 

position, and stand/walk 6 of 8 hours and no greater than 30 minutes at 

one time without changing position. She can occasionally climb 

ramps/stairs, balance, stoop, crouch, and kneel, no crawling and no 

climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and no work at unprotected 

heights or moving machinery. She should avoid extreme cold and 

vibrations. She can understand, remember and perform simple tasks 

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 4 of 12
5

and concentrate and persist for 2 hours at a time, 5 days a week and 40 

hours a week. 

(R. 17). Relying on testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded that 

through her date last insured, there were jobs existing in significant numbers in the 

national economy that Ms. Hamilton could perform, such as cafeteria cashier, 

information clerk, and storage facility rental clerk. (R. 17). Accordingly, the ALJ 

determined that Ms. Hamilton was not under a disability as defined by the Social 

Security Act. (R. 17). 

IV. DISCUSSION

Ms. Hamilton argues that the court should reverse and remand the 

Commissioner’s decision for three reasons: (1) the ALJ erred by failing to fulfill the 

Commissioner’s duty to develop the record; (2) the ALJ erred by failing to mention 

or discuss meaningfully how Ms. Hamilton’s headaches would affect her ability to 

perform work activity; and (3) the ALJ erred by improperly acting as both judge and 

medical doctor. She also argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate her 

testimonial evidence. Because the resolution of her final argument is necessary to 

resolve her first three arguments, the court will address that issue in the context of 

the other three issues. The court addresses each issue in turn. 

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 5 of 12
6

A. Duty to Develop the Record

Ms. Hamilton argues that the ALJ failed to fulfill the Commissioner’s duty to 

develop the record because the second ALJ failed to obtain the medical evaluation 

that the first ALJ thought was necessary. 

At Ms. Hamilton’s first administrative hearing, the ALJ discussed obtaining 

a medical evaluation of Ms. Hamilton’s ability to lift, carry, bend or stoop because

Ms. Hamilton was unable to procure a medical expert opinion from her doctors. (R. 

59, 85). Nine months later, Ms. Hamilton received notice of a second hearing with 

a different ALJ. The second ALJ did not mention the first ALJ’s statement about 

obtaining a medical evaluation nor did he inquire about a medical evaluation. Ms. 

Hamilton contends that because the second ALJ failed to obtain the medical 

evaluation that the first ALJ had determined was required for the Commissioner to 

make an informed decision, the ALJ failed to develop the record.

2

 

“The claimant bears the burden of proving that he is disabled, and, 

consequently, he is responsible for producing evidence in support of his claim.” 

Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F. 3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003). However, it is wellestablished that the ALJ has a basic duty to develop a full and fair record. Kelley v. 

Heckler, 761 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1985). The ALJ is not obligated to seek 

 2 During the second hearing, Ms. Hamilton offered no expert opinion nor did she request that the ALJ obtain 

one. (R. 89-117). Additionally, Ms. Hamilton’s attorney agreed at the second hearing that the record was complete. 

(R. 92).

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 6 of 12
7

independent medical expert testimony where the record is sufficient to make a 

determination without expert assistance. Wilson v. Apfel, 179 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th 

Cir. 1999). “The [ALJ] has a duty to develop the record where appropriate but is 

not required to order a consultative examination as long as the record contains 

sufficient evidence for the [ALJ] to make an informed decision.” Ingram v. Astrue, 

496 F.3d 1253, 1269 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Doughty v. Apfel, 245 1274, 1281 (11th 

Cir. 2001)). 

Ms. Hamilton’s argument hinges on the fact that the first ALJ found that he 

needed an independent medical evaluation to decide if she was disabled. (R. 59). 

The second ALJ did not address that finding, implicitly determining that such a 

report was unnecessary. Thus, this court will review whether the second ALJ’s 

decision was supported by substantial evidence even in the absence of an 

independent medical evaluation. 

Ms. Hamilton testified that pain and medication side effects prevent her from 

working. (R. 101). She testified that she cannot do anything during the day due to 

the amount of pain she experiences. (R. 63–74). The ALJ found that testimony 

incredible considering the objective medical evidence in the record. 

In his decision, the second ALJ thoroughly and accurately described Ms. 

Hamilton’s testimony about the limitations imposed by her pain as well as her

treatment records, surgical notes, and follow-ups with physicians regarding pain 

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 7 of 12
8

management. (R. 18–22). He found that her testimony about her limitations was 

inconsistent with her activities of daily living and that she “has attempted to portray 

having conditions more severe than can be shown by the objective medical record.” 

(R. 21). Accordingly, to resolve the question whether the ALJ fulfilled his duty to 

develop the record, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports 

his credibility finding about Ms. Hamilton’s subjective complaints. 

Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, “to demonstrate that pain renders her 

disabled, a plaintiff must ‘produce evidence of an underlying medical condition and 

(1) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising 

from that condition or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of 

such severity that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged pain.” 

Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Landry v. Heckler,

782 F.2d 1551, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986)). 

The medical records establish that Ms. Hamilton’s upper extremity strength 

was essentially normal (r. 19, 569, 573, 642, 646, 660), her spinal alignment is 

neutral, and there is not “a lot of significant stenosis.” (R. 566). Medical evidence 

also shows that Ms. Hamilton sat and raised from a chair with no difficulty, and that 

her gate was grossly normal. (R. 642, 646, 653, 660, 670, 685). Her physical 

examination revealed that she exhibited “no overt pain behaviors.” (R. 660). 

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 8 of 12
9

Finally, the ALJ correctly noted that Ms. Hamilton reported no side effects from her 

medication. (R. 19, 659). 

In addition, Ms. Hamilton’s daily activities are inconsistent with the level of 

pain she describes. Ms. Hamilton is the primary caregiver of her 7 year old child. 

(R. 120). She is also able to grocery shop, do light cooking, and some laundry. (R. 

106, 306). 

The ALJ properly considered all relevant evidence in assessing Ms. 

Hamilton’s subjective complaints of pain and functional limitations. Given the 

medical records and testimony about daily activities, substantial evidence supports 

the ALJ’s credibility determination. And in light of that credibility determination, 

the ALJ was able to make a decision without an independent medical expert opinion 

due to the medical evidence Ms. Hamilton provided. 

B. Failing to Mention or Discuss Ms. Hamilton’s Headaches

Ms. Hamilton next argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be 

reversed because the ALJ erred by failing to mention or discuss meaningfully how 

Ms. Hamilton’s headaches would affect her ability to perform work activity. (See

Doc. 12 at 11-14). She argues that the decision fails to even mention the word 

headache, much less give a rationale regarding the medically determinable 

impairment of headache. (Id. at 11).

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 9 of 12
10

Ms. Hamilton testified that she experienced “insane” headaches because of 

her neck pain. (R. 104). She also testified that her neck pain went into the front of 

her head and caused her headaches. (R. 96). Medical records show that in April 

2016 she complained of daily headaches with “throbbing” neck pain. (R. 674). In 

August 2016, Ms. Hamilton described her headaches as “constant and throbbing in 

the frontal area and also from posterior neck up the back of her head and to the top.” 

(R. 645). In January 2017, she complained of “headache that radiates to the crown

[and] aching and stabbing pain in the posterior neck.” (R. 705). 

Ms. Hamilton alleges that because the ALJ did not mention the word 

“headache” in his opinion, he therefore erred as a matter of law. But, it is clear from 

both the medical evidence and her testimony that Ms. Hamilton’s headaches are a 

symptom of her neck pain. (R. 101, 104, 677). Therefore, the ALJ implicitly

addressed her headaches in his opinion when he found that Ms. Hamilton’s 

subjective complaints about the limits imposed by her neck pain were not as 

debilitating as the objective medical evidence showed. And, as discussed above, 

substantial evidence supports that credibility determination. 

C. ALJ Improperly Acting as both judge and doctor

Ms. Hamilton’s third argument is rooted in her first; she argues that the 

Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the ALJ did not obtain a 

medical evaluation of Ms. Hamilton’s functional capacity and instead allowed his 

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 10 of 12
11

“personal views,” and his “own hunch or intuition” to guide his decision not to 

include any manipulative limitations in the residual functional capacity 

determination. (Doc. 12 at 14- 16). 

Although the ALJ considers opinions from medical sources, the final 

responsibility for determining residual functional capacity lies with the ALJ. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). In the present case, the record makes clear that the ALJ 

considered the entire record in determining the RFC. The ALJ properly evaluated 

the medical opinions on the record and stated with particularity the weight given to 

each opinion. (R. 17-22). And substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC finding. 

Ms. Hamilton’s argues that the residual functional capacity should have 

included manipulative limitations because she experienced some worsening of her 

ulnar nerve pain symptoms as well as continued numbness and tingling into the 

hands. (Doc. 12 at 15 (citing R. 656, 670)). But, the medical evidence does not 

support manipulative limitations. As previously discussed, the medical evidence 

establishes that Ms. Hamilton’s physical strength remained at or around 4/5 and 5/5 

despite her complaints. And, there was simply no treating or examining doctor who 

prescribed greater limitations for Ms. Hamilton than the ones contained in the RFC. 

Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination, it will not be 

disturbed. 

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 11 of 12
12

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons explained above, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s 

decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the Commissioner applied the 

proper legal standards in reaching the determination. Therefore, the court WILL

AFFIRM the Commissioner’s final decision. The court will enter a separate order 

consistent with this memorandum opinion. 

DONE and ORDERED this March 11, 2020.

 _________________________________

 ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:18-cv-01943-ACA Document 14 Filed 03/11/20 Page 12 of 12