Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_16-cv-00232/USCOURTS-alsd-2_16-cv-00232-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DOROTHY JOHNSON, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. :

 : CIVIL ACTION 16-0232-M

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Social Security Commissioner, :

 :

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), 

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security 

ruling denying claims for disability insurance benefits and 

Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter SSI) (Docs. 1, 16). 

The parties filed written consent and this action has been 

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all 

proceedings and order judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, and S.D.Ala. Gen.L.R. 73(b) (see Doc. 

22). Oral argument was waived in this action (Doc. 21). After 

considering the administrative record and the memoranda of the 

parties, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be 

REVERSED and that this action be REMANDED for further 

administrative actions not inconsistent with the Orders of this 

Court.

This Court is not free to reweigh the evidence or 

substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of Health and 

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12
2

Human Services, Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th

Cir. 1983), which must be supported by substantial evidence. 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial 

evidence requires “that the decision under review be supported 

by evidence sufficient to justify a reasoning mind in accepting 

it; it is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” 

Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 918 (11th Cir. 1984), quoting 

Jones v. Schweiker, 551 F.Supp. 205 (D. Md. 1982).

At the time of the administrative hearing, Johnson was 

forty-eight years old, had completed high school (Tr. 48-50), 

and had previous work experience as a cafeteria worker, 

housekeeper, and fish grader (Doc. 15). Plaintiff alleges 

disability due to mild mental retardation, back pain, and 

obesity (Doc. 15).

The Plaintiff applied for disability insurance and SSI on 

November 12, 2012, asserting a disability onset date eleven days 

earlier (Tr. 29, 192-201). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

denied benefits, determining that Johnson was capable of 

performing her past relevant work (Tr. 29-38). Plaintiff 

requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 19-22), but the 

Appeals Council denied it (Tr. 1-6).

Plaintiff claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not 

supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Johnson

alleges that: (1) She meets the requirements of Listing 12.05C; 

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 12
3

(2) the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions of her treating 

physician; (3) the ALJ improperly rejected the conclusions of an

examining psychologist; and (4) the ALJ did not fully and fairly 

develop the record (Doc. 16). Defendant has responded to—and 

denies—these claims (Doc. 17). The Court’s summary of the 

record evidence follows.1

On July 6, 2011, Psychologist Donald W. Blanton evaluated 

Johnson who walked slowly with the aid of a cane; thoughts and 

conversation were logical and associations were intact (Tr. 320-

24). Affect was flat, but appropriate; she was depressed and 

had low energy. No psychomotor retardation or agitation was 

noted; she admitted to auditory hallucinations. Insight was 

limited and judgment was considered fair. Johnson stated that 

she did light housework and cooked light meals; though she 

thought that she could shop and handle money, a family member 

did those things for her. Plaintiff took the Wechsler Adult 

Intelligence Scale-IV (hereinafter WAIS-IV) test and scored a 

verbal comprehension of 61, a perceptual reasoning score of 68, 

a working memory score of 65, a processing speed score of 71, 

and a Full Scale IQ score of 62, placing her in the mild range 

of mental retardation; Blanton thought the scores were valid as 

Johnson had put forth good effort. On the Wide-Range 

Achievement Test (Revised III), Plaintiff scored a third-grade 

																																																							 1

The Court will not summarize evidence that pre-dates Johnson’s 

asserted onset date by more than a year unless it specifically relates 

to one of her claims.

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 12
4

level in reading, a fourth-grade level in spelling, and a 

second-grade level in arithmetic. The Beck Depression 

Inventory-II indicated moderate depression. The Psychologist’s 

diagnostic impression was as follows: 1) anxiety/depression due 

to chronic pain and illness; 2) history of grief reaction with 

psychosis; and 3) mild mental retardation. Blanton indicated 

that he thought Johnson was markedly limited in her ability to 

do the following: understand, remember, and use judgment in 

carrying out detailed or complex instructions; respond to 

customary work pressure; and maintain attention and 

concentration and pace for at least two hours. The Psychologist 

opined that Plaintiff’s mental retardation was life-long; he 

indicated that she had demonstrated deficits in adaptive 

functioning due to mental retardation, prior to the age of 22, 

in communication, work, health safety, and functional academic 

skills. Blanton encouraged her to seek mental health treatment. 

On September 11, 2011, Plaintiff was treated at Hale County 

Hospital for plantar fasciitis in the right foot; she was given 

a shot of Decadron2 and encouraged to stretch daily (Tr. 354-62).

On October 10, 2012, Johnson was examined by Dr. Perry 

Timberlake with complaints of dizziness, back pain, headache, 

and left breast pain (Tr. 364-65). At the height of five-foot, 

																																																							 2Error! Main Document Only.Decadron is a corticosteroid used for, 

among other things, the treatment of rheumatic disorders. Physician's 

Desk Reference 1635-38 (52nd ed. 1998). 

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 4 of 12
5

three and one-half inches, she weighed 202 pounds; this body 

mass index of 35 is defined as severely obese.3 The Doctor 

prescribed Lortab,4 Amitriptyline,5 and Atenolol.6 A mammogram 

revealed benign fibroid tissue (Tr. 393). 

On January 28, 2013, Psychologist Blanton examined 

Plaintiff for complaints of headaches, hip and back pain, and 

depression; he noted that she was restless, sat awkwardly, and 

appeared to be in pain (Tr. 367-69). Thoughts and conversation 

were logical while associations were intact with no confusion; 

affect was flat, but appropriate. Johnson was depressed and 

cried for no apparent reason; she reported poor sleep and 

appetite and low energy. Plaintiff was oriented in four 

spheres, but obsessed with her pain; Blanton referenced his 

prior records and indicated that she appeared mildly mentally 

retarded at this examination. Johnson’s memory was consistent 

with her intellect, her insight was limited, and her judgment 

was fair for work and financial decisions. Plaintiff reported 

that she could wash some clothes, make a sandwich, had a 

driver’s license, shop, and handle her own money, though family 

members did most of these things for her. Blanton diagnosed 

																																																							 3See http://www.bdaweightwise.com/lose/lose_bmi.html 4

Error! Main Document Only.Lortab is a semisynthetic narcotic 

analgesic used for “the relief of moderate to moderately severe pain.” 

Physician's Desk Reference 2926-27 (52nd ed. 1998). 5

Error! Main Document Only.Amitriptyline, marketed as Elavil, is 

used to treat the symptoms of depression. Physician's Desk Reference

3163 (52nd ed. 1998). 6

Atenolol is used to treat angina and hypertension. See

https://www.drugs.com/atenolol.html

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 5 of 12
6

significant depression, likely due to chronic pain, and mild 

mental retardation and encouraged her to get mental health care.

On March 5, 2013, Dr. Judy Cooke Travis evaluated Johnson 

who complained of headaches, back problems, dizziness, and leg 

pain; her weight was 210 and her blood pressure was 130/80 (Tr. 

371-75). Plaintiff had decreased range of motion (hereinafter 

ROM) in her neck, back, and spine though there was no spasms, 

deformity, or tenderness; she could not squat. Johnson had 

normal gait, without assistance; she had 5/5 motor strength and 

regular examinations in all extremities. Dr. Travis’s 

assessment was low back pain and cervical strain, both of which 

could be related to a degenerative disc; she also had tension 

headaches, insomnia, and vertigo. 

On May 15, 2013, Plaintiff complained of lower back pain 

radiating into the left leg, exacerbated by thirty minutes of 

standing; Dr. Timberlake noted lumbar spine tenderness and a 

history of migraines, lumbar disc disease, and neuropathy (Tr. 

388-89). He re-prescribed medications as before and stated that 

Johnson was “completely and totally disabled to do gainful work 

now or in [the] future” (Tr. 389). On September 24, Plaintiff 

complained of moderate right leg pain that was interfering with 

daily activities; she could stand only twenty minutes (Tr. 386-

87). Timberlake also noted low back pain and gave her Lyrica7

																																																							 7Lyrica is used for the management of neuropathic pain. Error! 

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 6 of 12
7

samples. On May 27, 2014, Johnson complained of headaches, 

lower back pain, radiating into the right leg, and worsening

depression; the Doctor noted that the lumbosacral area and right 

leg were quite tender and prescribed Norco8 and Effexor9 in 

addition to previously prescribed drugs (Tr. 381-82). On August 

5, Dr. Timberlake completed a physical medical source statement, 

indicating that Plaintiff was capable of sitting for two and 

standing or walking for one hour during an eight-hour day; she 

could lift and carry five pounds occasionally (Tr. 398). He 

noted that she did not require an assistive walking device and 

there was no need to avoid extreme temperatures, dust, fumes, 

gasses, humidity, or other environmental pollutants; she could 

engage in fine and gross manipulation, operate motor vehicles, 

and work with or around hazardous machinery occasionally, use 

arm or leg controls and climb only rarely, but could never bend, 

stoop, or reach. The Doctor also completed an assessment 

indicating her pain was profound, intractable, and virtually 

incapacitating, that physical activity increased her pain to the 

level of requiring bed rest or medication, and that medication 

would severely limit her ability to perform “the most simple 

everyday tasks;” the pain was reasonable for her medical 

condition and could be expected to prevent her from maintaining 

																																																																																																																																																																				

Main Document Only.Physician's Desk Reference 2517 (62nd ed. 2008).

8Norco is an opioid pain medication used to relieve moderate to 

severe pain. See http://www.drugs.com/norco.html 9

Error! Main Document Only.Effexor is used “for the treatment of 

depression. Physician's Desk Reference 3037 (52nd ed. 1998).

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 7 of 12
8

attention, concentration, or pace for periods of at least two 

hours (Tr. 399). 

This concludes the Court’s summary of the evidence.

Plaintiff claims she meets the requirements of Listing 

12.05C. The introductory notes to Section 12.05 state that 

“[i]ntellectual disability refers to a significantly subaverage 

general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive 

functioning initially manifested during the development period; 

i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the 

impairment before age 22.” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, 

Appendix 1, Listing 12.05 (2016). Subsection C requires "[a] 

valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and 

a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and 

significant work-related limitation of function." 20 C.F.R. 

Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Listing 12.05C. 

Although the regulations require Plaintiff demonstrate she 

suffered “deficits in adaptive behavior” before turning twentytwo, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Listing 12.05, 

the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Hodges v. Barnhart, 

276 F.3d 1265, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001), held “that there is a 

presumption that mental retardation is a condition that remains 

constant throughout life.” The Hodges Court further held “that 

a claimant need not present evidence that she manifested 

deficits in adaptive functioning prior to the age of twenty-two, 

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 8 of 12
9

when she presented evidence of low IQ test results after the age 

of twenty-two.” Hodges, 276 F.3d at 1266. However, the 

presumption is rebuttable. Hodges, 276 F.3d at 1267. 

Johnson points to Psychologist Blanton’s 2011 examination 

when Listing-level scores on the WAIS-IV, including a Full Scale 

IQ score of 62, were reported as evidence of mild mental 

retardation (Doc. 16, pp. 12-13; cf. Tr. 322). In examination 

notes eighteen months later, the Psychologist stated the earlier 

test results still seemed valid, though no more testing was 

conducted (Tr. 368). Plaintiff also references the ALJ’s 

finding that her obesity was a severe impairment (see Tr. 31).

The Court finds that the two prongs of Listing 12.05C have 

been satisfied. Johnson’s IQ scores meet the first prong and 

stand unrebutted. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals, in Edwards by Edwards v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 1513, 1515 

(11th Cir. 1985), held that the second prong of 12.05C is met 

when a finding is made that a claimant has an additional severe 

impairment as “significant work-related limitation of function” 

“involves something more than ‘minimal’ but less than 

‘severe’”). The ALJ’s finding of obesity satisfies that prong.

In her determination, the ALJ found Johnson had no 

combination of impairments that met any Listing requirements

(Tr. 32); she did not discuss the requirements of any Listing. 

In sifting the evidence, the ALJ summarized Blanton’s second 

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 9 of 12
10

exam, but did not report the first visit or the IQ scores 

therein (Tr. 34).10 The ALJ went on to find Blanton’s mental 

retardation diagnosis was not credible because Johnson had

stated she completed high school, in a non-special education 

curriculum, and a month of college before quitting to go work to 

help her mother (Tr. 36; cf. Tr. 251, but see Tr. 48-51). 

Sunshine High School records show Johnson received twenty 

credits over four and one-half years, repeating eleventh grade 

and going a single semester in twelfth grade, and graduated 

though she did not pass the reading or math portions of the 

graduate exam (Tr. 278, 281-82). Plaintiff testified records 

were incorrect in stating that she was not in special education 

classes (Tr. 51).11

The Government acknowledges the ALJ did not specifically 

find that Johnson did not meet Listing 12.05C, though asserting 

that she implicitly did so (Doc. 17, p. 11). Defendant argues 

that this implicit conclusion was reached in the ALJ’s rejection 

of Blanton’s mental retardation finding and in pointing out 

inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s testimony (Doc. 17, p. 9-10). 

The undersigned notes that the ALJ is required to "state 

specifically the weight accorded to each item of evidence and 

																																																							 10The ALJ stated the second examination was at Plaintiff’s 

Attorney’s referral (Tr. 32), but Blanton’s exam reports the Social 

Security Department made the referral (Tr. 367; see also Tr. 366).

11Though Defendant argues otherwise (see Doc. 17, p. 9), Johnson 

clearly indicated, in testimony, that she was in special education 

classes (Tr. 50-51).

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 10 of 12
11

why he reached that decision." Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 

731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981). Furthermore, social security 

regulations provide the following instruction:

It is not sufficient for the 

adjudicator to make a single, conclusory 

statement that “the individual's allegations 

have been considered” or that “the 

allegations are (or are not) credible.” It 

is also not enough for the adjudicator 

simply to recite the factors that are 

described in the regulations for evaluating 

symptoms. The determination or decision 

must contain specific reasons for the 

finding on credibility, supported by the 

evidence in the case record, and must be 

sufficiently specific to make clear to the

individual and to any subsequent reviewers 

the weight the adjudicator gave to the 

individual's statements and the reasons for 

that weight.

SSR 96-7p (Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: 

Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the 

Credibility of an Individual’s Statements).

The Court notes that while the Government points to various 

evidence as reasons to believe that the ALJ rejected Blanton’s 

finding that she had suffered deficits in adaptive functioning, 

the ALJ herself did not make any such finding. Furthermore, the 

ALJ made no credibility findings as to Johnson’s statements. 

Though she set out inconsistent testimony and statements made by 

Plaintiff, the ALJ gave no indication what was credited or 

rejected. 

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 11 of 12
12

In summary, the ALJ, in her determination, did not do the 

following: (1) discuss IQ scores providing Listing requirement 

evidence of mental retardation; (2) make a specific finding as 

to whether or not Plaintiff had suffered deficits in adaptive 

functioning; and (3) make a credibility finding regarding 

Johnson’s testimony and statements concerning her impairments. 

As such, the Court cannot find that the ALJ’s conclusions are 

supported by substantial evidence.12

In reaching this decision, the Court notes that it is not 

finding that Johnson is mentally retarded. The ALJ may be 

correct in her conclusions. However, the decision entered does 

not provide the necessary support to affirm her conclusions.

Based on review of the entire record, the Court finds that 

the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the action be REVERSED and 

REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further 

administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion, to 

include, the taking of additional evidence as to Plaintiff’s 

mental abilities. Judgment will be entered by separate Order.

DONE this 18th day of November, 2016.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

																																																							 12Because the Court has reached this decision, it is unnecessary 

to address Johnson’s three other claims.

Case 2:16-cv-00232-M Document 23 Filed 11/18/16 Page 12 of 12