Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_13-cv-00587/USCOURTS-almd-1_13-cv-00587-0/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)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

MARY WINDSOR, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:13cv587-WC 

 ) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Plaintiff, Mary Windsor, applied for supplemental social security income on June 

18, 2010. That application was denied. As a result, Plaintiff requested and received a 

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Following the hearing, the ALJ 

issued a decision and found Plaintiff “not disabled” at any time through the date of the 

decision. Plaintiff then requested the Appeals counsel review the ALJ’s decision. The 

Appeals Counsel denied Plaintiff’s request for review and the ALJ’s decision 

consequently became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Commissioner”).1

 See Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). 

 The case is now before the court for review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties have consented to the conduct of all proceedings and 

 

1

 Pursuant to the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-

296, 108 Stat. 1464, the functions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to Social 

Case 1:13-cv-00587-WC Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 8
2 

entry of a final judgment by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Pl.’s 

Consent to Jurisdiction (Doc. 9); Def.’s Consent to Jurisdiction (Doc. 10). Based on the 

court’s review of the record and the briefs of the parties, the court AFFIRMS the decision 

of the Commissioner. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), a person is entitled to disability benefits when 

the person is unable to 

engage in 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 12 months. 

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).2

 To make this determination, the Commissioner employs a five-step, sequential 

evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2011). 

(1) Is the person presently unemployed? 

(2) Is the person’s impairment severe? 

(3) Does the person’s impairment meet or equal one of the specific 

impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 [the Listing of 

Impairments]? 

(4) Is the person unable to perform his or her former occupation? 

(5) Is the person unable to perform any other work within the economy? 

An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads either to the next 

question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative 

 

Security matters were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security. 

2

 A “physical or mental impairment” is one resulting from anatomical, physiological, or psychological 

abnormalities that are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic 

techniques. 

Case 1:13-cv-00587-WC Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 8
3 

answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of 

“not disabled.” 

McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986).3

 The burden of proof rests on a claimant through Step 4. See Phillips v. Barnhart, 

357 F.3d 1232, 1237-39 (11th Cir. 2004). A claimant establishes a prima facie case of 

qualifying disability once they have carried the burden of proof from Step 1 through Step 

4. At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner, who must then show there are a 

significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform. Id. 

 To perform the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s 

Residual Functional Capacity (RFC). Id. at 1238-39. RFC is what the claimant is still 

able to do despite his impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other 

evidence. Id. It also can contain both exertional and nonexertional limitations. Id. at 

1242-43. At the fifth step, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and 

work experience to determine if there are jobs available in the national economy the 

claimant can perform. Id. at 1239. To do this, the ALJ can either use the Medical 

Vocational Guidelines4

 (grids) or call a vocational expert (VE). Id. at 1239-40. 

 The grids allow the ALJ to consider factors such as age, confinement to sedentary 

or light work, inability to speak English, educational deficiencies, and lack of job 

 

3 McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir. 1986), is a supplemental security income case (SSI). The 

same sequence applies to disability insurance benefits. Cases arising under Title II are appropriately cited 

as authority in Title XVI cases. See, e.g., Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1981). 

4 See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt. P, app. 2. 

Case 1:13-cv-00587-WC Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 Page 3 of 8
4 

experience. Each factor can independently limit the number of jobs realistically available 

to an individual. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240. Combinations of these factors yield a 

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

 The court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is a limited one. This court 

must find the Commissioner’s decision conclusive if it is supported by substantial 

evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997). 

“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. It is such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); see also, Crawford v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Even if the evidence 

preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings, [a reviewing court] must affirm if the 

decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.”). A reviewing court may not look 

only to those parts of the record which support the decision of the ALJ, but instead must 

view the record in its entirety and take account of evidence which detracts from the 

evidence relied on by the ALJ. Hillsman v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 1179 (11th Cir. 1986). 

[The court must] . . . scrutinize the record in its entirety to determine the 

reasonableness of the [Commissioner’s] . . . factual findings. . . . No 

similar presumption of validity attaches to the [Commissioner’s] . . . legal 

conclusions, including determination of the proper standards to be applied 

in evaluating claims. 

Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999 (11th Cir. 1987). 

Case 1:13-cv-00587-WC Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 Page 4 of 8
5 

III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

 Plaintiff was thirty-two at the time of the hearing before the ALJ and had a ninth 

grade education. Tr. 29. Plaintiff had past relevant work experience as a 

cleaner/housekeeper. Tr. 57. Following the administrative hearing, and employing the 

five-step process, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had “not engaged in substantial gainful 

activity since . . . the application date.” (Step 1) Tr. 53. At Step 2, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: “cervicalgia, bipolar II 

disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning.” Id. At Step 3, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff’s impairments, or combination of impairments, did not meet or medically equal 

any listed impairment. Tr. 54. Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the RFC to 

perform a range of medium work with several physical and mental limitations. Tr. 56. 

Following the RFC determination, and after consulting with a VE, the ALJ determined 

that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work. (Step 4) Tr. 57. Accordingly, the 

ALJ held that Plaintiff “has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security 

Act, since . . . the date the application was filed.” Id.

IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

 Plaintiff presents two issues for the court’s consideration in review of the ALJ’s 

decision: (1) “[t]he Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the ALJ failed 

to mention or evaluate significant evidence of record”; and (2) “[t]he Commissioner’s 

decision should be reversed because the ALJ’s finding that [Plaintiff] is capable of 

Case 1:13-cv-00587-WC Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 Page 5 of 8
6 

performing the mental demands of unskilled level work is not supported by substantial 

evidence.” Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 12) at 3. Both of these issues center on the ALJ’s treatment of 

the opinion of a single consultative examiner and thus, will be addressed together. 

V. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed because the ALJ 

failed to consider and weigh the opinion of Dr. Jordan, the psychiatric consultative 

examiner. Pl’s Br. (Doc. 12) at 3. More specifically, Plaintiff argues that “[a]lthough the 

ALJ discussed certain minute pieces of Dr. Jordan’s opinion in support of her conclusion, 

she failed to assign weight, much less mention, the . . . portions of the record from Dr. 

Jordan that would prevent Ms. Jordan from performing any level of work activity.” Id. at 

7. Plaintiff points this court to portions of Dr. Jordan’s opinion to support her assertion 

that portions of Dr. Jordan’s opinion would preclude her from work. 

 First, it must be noted that Dr. Jordan was a consultative examiner rather than a 

treating physician. Consequently, his opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. See

20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2). As for the ALJ’s treatment of the opinion, it is clear that the 

ALJ both considered and relied on Dr. Jordan’s opinion in making the RFC 

determination. Although the ALJ did not specifically set forth the weight given to Dr. 

Jordan’s opinion, it is clear from the decision upon which portions the ALJ relied and 

which portions were rejected. 

Case 1:13-cv-00587-WC Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 Page 6 of 8
7 

 Plaintiff points to Dr. Jordan’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s intellectual 

functioning, judgment, social functioning, and GAF score assignment. As to the GAF 

score assignment, “the GAF scale ‘does not have a direct correlation to the severity 

requirements in our mental disorders listings.’” Nye v. Comm’r of Socr Sec., 524 F. 

App’x 538, 545 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting 65 Fed. Reg. at 50764-65). As to Dr. Jordan’s 

opinions regarding Plaintiff’s intellectual functioning, judgment, social functioning, 

Plaintiff has failed to show these opinions are at odds with the RFC. The RFC 

specifically limits Plaintiff to “simple tasks with short, simple instructions that require 

only occasional contact with the general public and which requires infrequent changes in 

the workplace.” Tr. 56. Thus, the RFC encompasses the concerns opined by Dr. Jordan. 

As the Commissioner rightly points out, “Dr. Jordan expressly opined that Plaintiff had 

an unhindered ability to remember and carry our simple instructions and that she was 

only partially limited with respect to completing tasks . . . [and] opined that ‘Plaintiff’s 

physical issues seem to be the primary limiting factor.’” Def.’s Br. (Doc. 15) at 9 (citing 

Tr. 256). 

 Plaintiff’s bald assertion in her second claim, that the limitations expressed by Dr. 

Jordan would preclude her from performing any level of work activity is unsupported by 

either the record or Dr. Jordan’s opinion. When addressing Plaintiff’s prognosis in terms 

of “vocation,” Dr. Jordan set forth parameters for Plaintiff to perform work, Dr. Jordan 

Case 1:13-cv-00587-WC Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 Page 7 of 8
8 

did not opine that Plaintiff’s limitations would preclude her from work. Dr. Jordan 

opined, 

In terms of vocations, the claimant’s ability to carry out and remember 

instructions of a simple, one-step nature is not compromised. The claimant 

cannot do multi-step tasks without some degree of supervision. 

In terms of vocation, the claimant’s ability to respond well to coworkers, 

supervision, and everyday work pressures is compromised to a moderate to 

severe degree due to psychiatric issues. Physical issues seem to be the 

primary limiting factor. . . 

Tr. 256. As stated above, the RFC encompasses these limitations. Plaintiff has not 

shown that Dr. Jordan’s opinion would preclude Plaintiff’s ability to work or that the 

opinion is somehow in conflict with the RFC. The court finds these arguments to be 

without merit. 

VI. CONCLUSION

 The court has carefully and independently reviewed the record and concludes that, 

for the reasons given above, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. A 

separate judgment will issue. 

 Done this 12th day of August, 2014. 

 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:13-cv-00587-WC Document 17 Filed 08/12/14 Page 8 of 8