Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00247/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00247-0/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

NORTHERN DIVISION

JULIUS KARL QUINCE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv247-TFM

) (WO)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Julius Karl Quince (“Quince”) applied for disability insurance benefits

pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., alleging that he is

unable to work because of a disability. His application was denied at the initial

administrative level. The plaintiff then requested and received a hearing before an

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Following the hearing, the ALJ concluded that the

plaintiff was not under a “disability” as defined in the Social Security Act. The ALJ,

therefore, denied the plaintiff’s claim for benefits. The Appeals Council rejected a

subsequent request for review. The ALJ’s decision consequently became the final decision

of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). See Chester v. Bowen, 792

1

F.2d 129, 131 (11 Cir. 1986). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented th

Pursuant to the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 1

103-296, 108 Stat. 1464, the functions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to Social

Security matters were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security.

Case 2:12-cv-00247-TFM Document 17 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 9
to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge. The case is now before

the court for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g) and 1631(c)(3). Based on the court's

review of the record in this case and the parties’ briefs, the court concludes that the

Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed.

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 . . . 

To make this determination, the Commissioner employs a five-step, sequential 2

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

(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?

(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

answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of “not

disabled.”

A “physical or mental impairment” is one resulting from anatomical, physiological, or 2

psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques.

2

Case 2:12-cv-00247-TFM Document 17 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 9
McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11 Cir. 1986). th 3

The standard of 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 (11 Cir. 1997). “Substantial th

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). A reviewing court may not look only to those parts of

the record which supports the decision of the ALJ but instead must view the record in its

entirety and take account of evidence which detracts fromthe evidence relied on by the ALJ. 

Hillsman v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 1179 (11 Cir. 1986). th

[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 (11 Cir. 1987). th

III. The Issues

A. Introduction. 

Quince was 53 years old at the time of the hearing and is a high school graduate. (R.

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

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 (5 Cir. 1981) (Unit A).

th

3

Case 2:12-cv-00247-TFM Document 17 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 9
22, 27, 32.) Quince has prior work experience as a tractor driver. (R. 51.) Quince alleges

that he became disabled on January 15, 2006, due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

(COPD), hypertension, degenerative disease in the left knee, headaches, and glaucoma. (R.

14, 30.) After the hearing, the ALJ found that Quince suffers from severe impairments of

COPD and arthritis of the left knee, as well as non-severe impairments of glaucoma with

normal vision, hypertension with no end organ damage, and depression with no more than

mild limitations. (R. 16.) The ALJ found that Quince is unable to perform his past relevant

work, but that he retains the residual functional capacity to perform medium work with

limitations. (R. 17.) Testimony from a vocational expert led the ALJ to conclude that a

significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that Quince could perform,

including work as an assembler, sales attendant, and electronics worker. (R. 23.) 

Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Quince is not disabled. (Id.)

B. The Plaintiff’s Claim.

Quince’s sole claim is whether the Appeals Council erred by failing to remand his

case to the ALJ on the basis of new evidence. (Doc. No. 13, Pl’s Br., p. 2.)

IV. Discussion

Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), in part, permits courts to remand a case to the Social

Security Administration for consideration of new evidence under certain circumstances. 

4

Case 2:12-cv-00247-TFM Document 17 Filed 01/04/13 Page 4 of 9
Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Adm., 496 F.3d 1253, 1261 (11 Cir. 2007). Quince asserts th

that he presented new evidence to the Appeals Council which was not considered by the ALJ. 

Because additional evidence was submitted and considered by the Appeals Council after the

ALJ’s decision, the proper inquiryis whether the Appeals Council’s decision to denybenefits

is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Ingram v. Astrue, 496 F.3d

1252, 1262-64 (11 Cir. 2007). Quince argues that this case should be remanded to the th

Commissioner because the Appeals Council did not adequately consider the new evidence

when denying his request for review. 

Shortlyafter the ALJ rendered her June 22, 2010 decision, Quince provided additional

medical records to the Commissioner. The evidence includes a previouslyomitted May2009

record from Medical Outreach Ministries Family Health Center. (R. 409.) At that visit,

Quince complained of chest discomfort, dizziness, and left knee pain. (Id.) A physician

assessed uncontrolled hypertension, anxiety, knee pain, and COPD and adjusted his

medication. (Id.) He also provided reports from a July 2009 pulmonary function test,

indicating normal results. (R. 374-375.) The medical records include an October 2009

record from Institute for Total Eye Care, in which Quince complained of painful pressure

around his eyes, a headache, and dizziness. (R. 368.) A physician noted that Quince’s

interocular pressure was stable. (Id.) 

After the hearing before the ALJ, Quince continued to receive treatment for his

conditions at Medical Outreach Ministries and Baptist Hospital. On June 9, 2010, Quince

5

Case 2:12-cv-00247-TFM Document 17 Filed 01/04/13 Page 5 of 9
returned to Medical Outreach Ministries complaining of chest pressure in the evenings,

dizziness, and joint pain. (R. 407.) A physician questioned whether Quince’s chest pain was

heart-related or esophageal in origin, recommended Mylanta, and referred Quince for nuclear

stress testing. (Id.) The physician also noted that Quince’s hypertension control was

satisfactory and that his COPD seemed stable. (Id.)

On June 30, 2010, Quince underwent a cardiac stress test at Baptist Medical Center. 

(R. 399, 410.) The radiologist’s impression was a fixed inferior wall defect probably

secondary to scar formation from a previous myocardial infarction with no reversible defects

and an ejection fraction of 56% with infrabasilar hypokinesis (mild). (Id.) 

On July 14, 2010, Quince returned to Medical Outreach Ministries complaining of

right knee pain, headaches, and occasional chest discomfort. (R. 404.) The physician

adjusted Quince’s medication for hypertension, suggested Mylanta for the treatment of chest

discomfort, prescribed Alphagan and Travatan for the treatment of glaucoma, and noted that

his COPD was “satisfactory at present.” (R. 404.) During a follow-up appointment on July

19, 2010, a physician noted that Quince’s blood pressure as “much improved” and prescribed

Clonidine, Micardis, Norvasc, and Hydrochlorothiazide. (R. 402.)

On September 9, 2010, Quince complained of continued chest pain, depression, and

difficulty sleeping. (R. 422.) The physician found that Quince’s hypertension was fairly

controlled with medication, prescribed Lexapro and Elavil for depression, referred him to a

cardiologist, and requested a heart catheterization for his complaints of chest pain. (Id.)

6

Case 2:12-cv-00247-TFM Document 17 Filed 01/04/13 Page 6 of 9
On September 15, 2010, at Baptist South Hospital, Dr. H. Forrest Flemming, a

cardiologist, performed a heart catheterization on Quince. (R. 429.) Dr. Flemming found

“normal left size and wall motion” and “mild coronary artery disease.” (Id.)

On October 11, 2010, Quince returned to Medical Outreach Ministries with

complaints of dizziness, blurry vision, occasional chest pain, and high blood pressure. (R.

420.) A physician assessed that Quince’s chest pain “seems non-cardiac” and that the

plaintiff had adequate control of his hypertension. (Id.) 

On November 17, 2010, Quince presented to Medical Outreach Ministries,

complaining that he “gets dizzy frequently – passed out briefly a few times” and chest pain

three to four times a week. (R. 417.) The physician noted that Quince’s blood pressure

dropped from 104/80 to 90/70 upon standing, assessed postural hypotension, and adjusted

his blood pressure medication. (Id.) During a follow-up appointment on December 1, 2010,

Quince reported that he “still has some dizziness.” (R. 415.) The physician recorded a drop

in blood pressure upon standing, assessed postural dizziness, and discontinued his

prescription for Hydrochlorothiazide. (Id.)

Quince argues that the new evidence supports a finding that his impairments and

limitations were of greater severity than determined by the ALJ at the time of his decision. 

(Pl’s Br., p. 7.) The Appeals Council considered the additional evidence and determined that

the information did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ’s decision. (R. 1, 4-5.) This

court has reviewed the record in its entirety and concludes that the Commissioner’s decision

7

Case 2:12-cv-00247-TFM Document 17 Filed 01/04/13 Page 7 of 9
is supported by substantial evidence. The new medical records indicate that Quince had

subjective complaints of dizziness, chest pain, glaucoma, and high blood pressure. However,

Quince’s subjective complaints are not supported by the objective medical evidence. For

example, the evidence before the Appeals Council demonstrates that, despite Quince’s

complaints of eye pressure, an opthalmologist found that his intraocular pressure was stable. 

(R. 386.) In addition, medical personnel noted that his COPD was stable and satisfactory and

that his pulmonary function is normal. (R. 374-75, 404, 407.) A physician also assessed that

Quince’s chest pain was esophageal, rather than cardiac, in origin. (R. 404, 407, 420, 422.) 

His physician also assessed that Quince’s dizziness was due to a drop in blood pressure upon

changing position and adjusted his hypertension medication. (R. 415, 417.) 

The court notes that, although the objective medical evidence indicates that Quince 

has a “fixed interior wall defect probably secondary to scar formation from previous

myocardial infarction,” he did not allege disability on the basis of a heart condition during

the Social Security proceedings. (R. 399.) More importantly, the records indicate that no

reversible defects are noted and that Quince’s heart is able to pump blood at a normal

volume. (Id.) In addition, a cardiologist determined that Quince has no more than mild

coronary artery disease. (R. 427-29.)

Upon consideration of the evidence as a whole, including the new evidence provided

to the Appeals Council, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s determination that

Quince could perform medium work with limitations during the relevant time period is

8

Case 2:12-cv-00247-TFM Document 17 Filed 01/04/13 Page 8 of 9
supported by substantial evidence. 

V. Conclusion

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

substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s conclusion that plaintiff is not disabled. 

Thus, the court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial

evidence and is due to be affirmed.

A separate order will be entered.

DONE this 4th day of January, 2013.

/s/ Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 2:12-cv-00247-TFM Document 17 Filed 01/04/13 Page 9 of 9