Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_10-cv-00091/USCOURTS-alsd-2_10-cv-00091-0/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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 NORTHERN DIVISION 

FADDIS SANDERS, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0091-M 

 : 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commission of Social Security, : 

 : 

 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 which denied claims for disability insurance benefits and 

Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter SSI) (Docs. 1, 12-13). 

The parties filed written consent and this action has been 

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all 

proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 19). Oral 

argument has been waived in this action (Doc. 18). Upon 

consideration of 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 to the Social 

Security Administration for further procedures not inconsistent 

Case 2:10-cv-00091-M Document 20 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 5
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 

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). The 

substantial evidence test 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, Plaintiff was 

forty-one years old, had completed a tenth-grade education (Tr. 

23), and had previous work experience, performing various jobs 

in the logging business (Tr. 30). In claiming benefits, 

Plaintiff alleges disability due to pain resulting from a 

thoracic spine fracture and thoraco-abdominal aneurysm as well 

as mild mental retardation (Doc. 13 Fact Sheet). 

 The Plaintiff filed applications for disability benefits 

and SSI on April 18, 2007 (see Tr. 9). Benefits were denied 

following a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who 

Case 2:10-cv-00091-M Document 20 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 5
determined that although Sanders could not return to his past 

relevant work, he was capable of performed several jobs falling 

within the sedentary work classification (Tr. 6-18). Plaintiff 

requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 4-5) by the 

Appeals Council, but it was denied (Tr. 1-3). 

 Sanders claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not supported 

by substantial evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that: 

(1) he meets the requirements of Listing 12.05C; (2) the ALJ 

improperly rejected the opinion of an examining psychologist; 

and (3) he can not perform sedentary work (Doc. 12). Defendant 

has responded to—and denies—these claims (Doc. 14). 

 Plaintiff claims that he meets the requirements of Listing 

12.05C.1

 The introductory notes to Section 12.05 state that 

“[m]ental retardation refers to a significantly subaverage 

general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive 

behavior 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 (2009). Subsection C requires "[a] 

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

 1 Because the Court finds that Plaintiff's first claim has merit, 

it will be unnecessary to discuss his other two claims. 

Case 2:10-cv-00091-M Document 20 Filed 08/05/10 Page 3 of 5
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 (2009). 

 The evidence demonstrates that Sanders was examined by 

Psychologist Donald W. Blanton on February 18, 2009 (Tr. 287-

90). Blanton administered the WAIS-IV on which Plaintiff scored 

a Full Scale IQ score of 61 (Tr. 289). The Psychologist 

indicated that this meant that Sanders was mildly mentally 

retarded. Blanton went on to express his opinion that Plaintiff 

had multiple marked limitations that would interfere with his 

ability to work. 

 In the written determination, the ALJ noted the WAIS-IV 

scores which placed him "in the mild range of mental 

retardation" (Tr. 12; see also Tr. 15). The ALJ went on to 

characterize Sanders's mental impairment as non-severe (Tr. 12). 

The ALJ did find that Plaintiff had severe impairments of a 

thoracic spine compression fracture and a thoraco-abdominal 

aneurysm (Tr. 11). 

 The Court notes that the IQ test scores and the ALJ's 

findings that Sanders has severe impairments seem to indicate 

that Plaintiff meets the minimum requirements of Listing 12.05C. 

However, the ALJ did not discuss the possibility. 

Case 2:10-cv-00091-M Document 20 Filed 08/05/10 Page 4 of 5
 In its brief, Defendant has provided various arguments as 

to why this Court need not find error in the ALJ's decision 

(Doc. 14, pp. 4-6). While it would be easy to accept the 

explanations proffered as those of the ALJ, the ALJ did not 

offer them. The Court does not know whether the ALJ considered 

whether Sanders met the Listing because it was not addressed. 

Therefore, the Court finds that the 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, at a minimum, a supplemental hearing for the gathering 

of evidence regarding Plaintiff's mild mental retardation. 

Judgment will be entered by separate Order. 

 DONE this 5th day of August, 2010. 

 s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:10-cv-00091-M Document 20 Filed 08/05/10 Page 5 of 5