Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-00112/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-00112-0/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

MIDDLE DIVISION

ROBIN DODSON SMITH,

Claimant,

vs.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-112-CLS 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Claimant, Robin Dodson Smith, commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g) on January 18, 2019, seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of

the Commissioner of the Social SecurityAdministration, affirming the decision of the

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and thereby denying her claim for a period of

disability and disability insurance benefits. Upon review of the record and briefs, and

for the reasons stated herein, the court remands this case to the Commissioner.

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, e.g., Lamb v.

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

FILED

 2020 Jan-08 PM 01:10

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:19-cv-00112-CLS Document 11 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 9
(11th Cir. 1983).

Claimant’s alleged disability began on February 1, 2009, and she last met the

insured status requirements of the Social Security Act on December 31, 2011.

1 The

ALJ found that claimant suffered from severe impairments of degenerative disc

disease, osteoarthritis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary insufficiency (CPI), but

concluded that she, nevertheless, was capable of performing light work, with

limitations including occasionally climbing ramps and stairs, along with the need to

avoid hazards or odors, dusts, fumes, chemicals, and other pulmonary irritants.

2

 

Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s decision is neither supported by

substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legalstandards. Specifically,

claimant asserts the following arguments:

1. The ALJ failed to find claimant disabled pursuant to Grid 202.04

based on her advanced age of 55 and limitation to light work.

2. The ALJ failed to consider that plaintiff’s condition of idiopathic

pulmonary fibrosis is on the Compassionate Allowance List, and entitled

to special consideration.

3. ALJ failed to properly determine the date of disability pursuant to

Social Security Ruling 83-20, finding only that she was not disabled

prior to December 31, 2011, the date last insured.

4. The ALJ improperly drew adverse inferences from lack of medical

treatment.

1

 Tr. 42-49. 

2

 Tr. 45. 

2

Case 4:19-cv-00112-CLS Document 11 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 9
5. The ALJ failed to give consideration to Claimant’s excellent work

history in assessing the testimony of Claimant.

6. The finding that Claimant can perform her past work, as of the date

last insured, is not supported by substantial evidence, and is not in

accordance with proper legal standards.

7. The ALJ denial was not based on substantial evidence.

Doc. no. 7, at 2. 

The court notes at the outset of discussion that this is an insured benefit case

under Title II,3and that the claimant’s claim for disability is limited to the insured

benefit period of February 1, 2009 (the date of alleged onset) to December 31, 2011

(the date on which claimant was last insured). The claimant, now 61 years of age, was

55 years old upon the date she was last insured. Her past relevant work is as a

preschool teacher/helper, robotic welder, and kindergarten teacher/aid.

4

In addition,

her socialsecurity earnings are consistent without any significant non-earning periods

back to the year 1991 through her date of last insured of December 31, 2011. There

are no medical opinions regarding the claimant’s functional capacity and limitations

during the insured period.

5 Claimant’s medical records during the insured period are

sparse, but they frame a picture of an individual suffering from severe abdominal and

back pain. Her abdominal and lower-back pains stem from acute urinary tract

3

 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

4

 Tr. 48.

5

Id.

3

Case 4:19-cv-00112-CLS Document 11 Filed 01/08/20 Page 3 of 9
infections and bladder issues.

6 Her other back pain is associated with osteoporosis and

a compression fracture of the thoracic vertebrae at T-7.

7 Claimant filed her initial

application for disability benefits on September 23, 2015, but the case was not heard

by the ALJ until June 19, 2017.

Claimant’s first assertion is that the ALJ failed to use the Medical Vocational

Guidelines, otherwise known asthe “grids,”8to determine that claimant was disabled. 

The problem with this argument, as correctly argued by the Commissioner, is that the

grids are not used until step five of the sequential process, and only then upon a

finding that a claimant cannot perform her past relevant work. Since the ALJ found

that the claimant could perform her past relevant work, this argument is without merit

in this case. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2 § 200.00(a) (which provides that

the grid rules apply only when a disability prevents claimant from performing his or

6

 Tr. 656-662.

7

 Tr. 999.

8

In Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004), the Eleventh Circuit explained that 

Social Security regulations currently contain a special section called

the Medical Vocational Guidelines. C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt. P, app. 2.

The Medical Vocational Guidelines (“grids”) provide applicants with

an alternate path to qualify for disability benefits when their

impairments do not meet the requirements of the listed qualifying

impairments. The grids provide for adjudicators to consider factors

such as age, confinement to sedentaryor light work, inability to speak

English, educational deficiencies, and lack of job experience. Each of

these factors can independently limit the number of jobs realistically

available to an individual. Combinations of these factors yield a

statutorily-required finding of “Disabled” or “Not Disabled. 

Id. at 1239-40.

4

Case 4:19-cv-00112-CLS Document 11 Filed 01/08/20 Page 4 of 9
her past relevant work). See also, e.g., Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1239–40

(11th Cir. 2004).

Claimant’s second and third arguments are also without merit. The second

essentially for claimant’s failure to make a cogent argument in her brief, and the third

is addressed below. The ALJ found claimant’s conditions of anemia, urinary tract

infections (“UTI”), dysuria, cystitis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (“GERD”)

as non-severe impairments.

9 However, as a combination, those impairments produced

considerable pain and fatigue during the insured period.

10 Beginning in 2012,

11

claimant began to experience issues with her lungs and was later diagnosed with

idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (“IPF”): a disease that causes a thickening of the lungs. 

In 2016, she underwent a double lung transplant as a result of this disease. Even

though, there is no known cause of IPF, the American Lung Association lists viral

infections and GERD as prominent risk factors.

12 While it appearsthat certain factors

and symptoms associated with IPF were present during the insured period, such a

determination would require an evaluation by a medical expert. Claimant argues that

Social Security Regulation (“SSR”) 83-20 necessitates a medical examination to

9

 Tr. 45.

10

 Tr. 656-662 and 948-956.

11

 Tr. 295.

12

https://www.lung.org/lung-health-and-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/pulmonary-fibrosis/

introduction/types-causes-and-risk-factors.html.

5

Case 4:19-cv-00112-CLS Document 11 Filed 01/08/20 Page 5 of 9
determine disability onset13

and that the ALJ erred in not ordering one in this case. 

However, the Eleventh Circuit has held that SSR 83-20 provides for determination of

a disability onset only when there has been a finding of disability, which is not the

case here. Klanwinski v. Commissioner of Social Security, 391 Fed. App’x. 772, 775-

776 (11th Cir. 2010).

In arguments four thru six, claimant essentially contends that the ALJ erred in

determining that she could perform her past relevant work. The ALJ determined that

claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) was limited to the performance of a

reduced range of light work, and that claimant was capable of performing her past

relevant work: i.e., that of teacher’s aide or daycare provider.14

In making that

determination, the ALJ found that claimant’s statements about the intensity,

persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms (her fatigue and pain) were

inconsistent with her testimony about her activities of caring for her grandchildren and

of daily living.

15 The initial burden of proof in a social security case is upon the

claimant to

prove his [or her] inability, due to physical or mental impairment, to

perform his [or her] previous work. . . In determining whether the

13 SSR 83-20, provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n addition to determining that an individual

is disabled, the decision maker must also establish the onset date of disability. In many claims, the

onset date is critical; it may affect the period for which the individual can be paid and may even be

determinative of whether the individual is entitled to or eligible for any benefits.” 

14

 Tr. 45.

15

 Tr. 47.

6

Case 4:19-cv-00112-CLS Document 11 Filed 01/08/20 Page 6 of 9
claimant hassatisfied thisinitial burden, the examiner [ALJ]is guided by

four factors: (1) objective medical facts or clinical findings; (2)

diagnoses of examining physicians; (3) subjective evidence of pain and

disability, e.g., the testimony of the claimant and his[or her] family; and

(4) the claimant’s age, education, and work history.

Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d at 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 1983), (citations omitted,

emphasis added and alterations supplied).

Upon closer review of claimant’s testimony, however, her statements are not

inconsistent with the medical records or her stated activities. For instance, claimant

did not state that she left work to simply take care of her grandchildren, but that she

instead left her most recent employment in 2009 because of back pain.

16 She

characterized her back pain as “on and off,” to the degree thatshe was having pain two

or three times a week.

17 As for her activities of daily living, claimant did not state or

appear to claim that she was independent with regard to these activities; instead she

simply stated that she performed them on days when she felt “good,” and that when

she didn’t feel good her daughter and husband would assist her.18 She also testified

that she had to recline, lie down, and rest for two to three hours during a work day. 

None of her testimony is inconsistent with either her medical evidence during the

relevant period, or with her stated activities. Further, claimant’stestimony concerning

16

 Tr. 291.

17

 Tr. 294.

18

 Tr. 296.

7

Case 4:19-cv-00112-CLS Document 11 Filed 01/08/20 Page 7 of 9
her back issues is consistent with the affidavit of her employer, Bobbie Davis, who

states that accommodations were made to claimant’s job duties due to her back

condition.

19

In sum, the claimant presented sufficient testimony and medical evidence that

her pain during the insured period caused her considerable trouble sitting and

standing, and that she had to lie down for two to three hours during a work day. As

shown, the testimonial inconsistencies between the findings of fact and claimant’s

actual hearing testimony essentially ignored claimant’s complaints of pain in the

evaluation of her residual functional capacity (“RFC”). This failure is evident in the

ALJ’s first hypothetical question, as presented to the vocational expert, where there

is no mention of claimant’s work capacity with any limitations due to pain.

20

Certainly, credibility determinations of subjective complaints of pain are within the

province of the ALJ, but they must be based upon substantial evidence, such as, actual

inconsistenciesin a claimant’s actions or testimony or medical evidence, and none are

present in this case. Mitchell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration., 771

F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014). The ALJsimply failed to properly evaluate claimant’s

complaints of pain and, therefore, a reversal is required. See, e.g., Holt v. Sullivan,

921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11thCir.1991);Cooper v. Commissioner of Social Security, 521

19

 Tr. 458.

20

 Tr. 305.

8

Case 4:19-cv-00112-CLS Document 11 Filed 01/08/20 Page 8 of 9
F. App’x 803, 807 (11th Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, this matter is due to be remanded for the ALJto properly evaluate

the claimant’s complaints of pain when determining whether she could perform her

past relevant work during the insured period. Based upon the foregoing, it is not

necessary to address the claimant’s remaining arguments. A separate order will be

entered contemporaneously herewith. 

DONE this 8th day of January, 2020.

______________________________

Senior United States District Judge

9

Case 4:19-cv-00112-CLS Document 11 Filed 01/08/20 Page 9 of 9