Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-00660/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-00660-0/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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHIRLEY ANN MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:13-CV-00660-LSC

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

I. Introduction

The plaintiff, Shirley Ann Morris, appeals from the decision of the

Commissioner ofthe Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying her

application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Ms. Morris timely pursued

and exhausted her administrative remedies and the decision of the Commissioner is

ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).

Ms. Morris was fifty-three years old at the time of the Administrative Law

Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) decision, and she has a tenth grade education. (Tr. at 125, 133.)

Her past work experiences include employment as an industrial cleaner, a

Page 1 of 14

FILED

 2014 Jun-03 AM 11:38

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 1 of 14
construction worker, and a poultry farm worker. (Tr. at 48-49.) Ms. Morris claims

that she became disabled on September 15, 2009, due to myofascial back pain and

hypertension. (Tr. at 129.)

When evaluating the disability of individuals over the age of eighteen, the

regulations prescribe a five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1520, 416.920;See also Doughty v.Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). The

first step requires a determination of whether the claimant is “doing substantial

gainful activity.”20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(I), 416.920(a)(4)(I). If he or she is, the

claimant is not disabled and the evaluation stops. Id. If he or she is not, the

Commissioner next considers the effect of all of the physical and mental impairments

combined. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). These impairments

must be severe and must meet the durational requirements before a claimant will be

found to be disabled. Id. The decision depends on the medical evidence in the record.

See Hart v. Finch, 440 F.2d 1340, 1341 (5th Cir. 1971). If the claimant’s impairments

are not severe, the analysis stops. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii).

Otherwise, the analysis continues to step three, which is a determination of whether

the claimant’s impairments meet or equal the severity of an impairment listed in 20

C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii),

Page 2 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 2 of 14
416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant’s impairments fall within this category, he or she

will be found disabled without further consideration. Id. If they do not, a

determination of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) will be made,

and the analysis proceeds to the fourth step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e).

The fourth step requires a determination of whether the claimant’s

impairments prevent him or her from returning to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can still do his or her past

relevant work, the claimant is not disabled and the evaluation stops.Id.If the claimant

cannot do past relevant work, then the analysis proceeds to the fifth step. Id. Step five

requires the court to consider the claimant’s RFC, as well as the claimant’s age,

education, and past work experience in order to determine if he or she can do other

work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can do other

work, the claimant is not disabled. Id.

Applying the sequential evaluation process, the ALJfirst found that Ms. Morris

has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset of her disability.

(Tr. at 12.) Next, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s myofascial back pain and

hypertension are considered “severe” based on the requirements set forth in the

regulations. (Id.) However, he found that these impairments neither meet nor

Page 3 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 3 of 14
medically equal any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,

Appendix 1. (Id.) The ALJ did not find Ms. Morris’s pain allegations to be totally

credible, and he determined that she has the following RFC: she retains the ability to

perform the full range of medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.767(c). (Tr. at

13.) 

Moving to the fourth step of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found

that Ms. Morris is capable of performing her past relevant work as an industrial

cleaner and a poultry farm worker. (Tr. at 16.) The ALJ determined that these jobs

do not require Plaintiff to perform any work-related activities precluded by her RFC.

(Id.) In addition to past work, the ALJ appropriately relied on the testimony of a

vocational expert to determine that there are a significant number of jobs in the

national economy that Plaintiff iscapableof performing, such as machine packer, hand

packer, and assembler. (Id.) The ALJ concluded his findings by stating that Plaintiff

“has not been under a ‘disability,’ as defined in the Social Security Act, since

September 30, 2009, the date the application was filed.” (Id.)

II. Standard of Review

This Court’s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is

a narrow one. The scope of its review is limited to determining (1) whether there is

Page 4 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 4 of 14
substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the

Commissioner, and (2) whether the correct legal standards were applied. See

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401 (1971); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d

1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002). The Court approaches the factual findings of the

Commissioner with deference, but applies close scrutiny to the legal conclusions. See

Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1996). The Court may not decide facts,

weigh evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id. “The

substantial evidence standard permits administrative decision makers to act with

considerable latitude, and ‘the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions

from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being

supported by substantial evidence.’” Parker v. Bowen, 793 F.2d 1177, 1181 (11th Cir.

1986) (Gibson, J., dissenting) (quoting Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607,

620 (1966)). Indeed, even if this Court finds that the evidence preponderates against

the Commissioner’s decision, the Court must affirm if the decision is supported by

substantial evidence. Miles, 84 F.3d at 1400. No decision is automatic, however, for

“despite this deferential standard [for reviewof claims] it is imperative that the Court

scrutinize the record in its entirety to determine the reasonableness of the decision

reached.” Bridges v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 622, 624 (11th Cir. 1987). Moreover, failure to

Page 5 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 5 of 14
apply the correct legal standards is grounds for reversal. See Bowen v.Heckler, 748F.2d

629, 635 (11th Cir. 1984).

III. Discussion

Ms. Morris contends that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed and remanded

because the ALJfailed to properly evaluate the credibility of her testimony of disabling

symptoms in accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s “pain standard.” (Doc. 9 at 3.)

Specifically, Ms. Morris alleges that while the ALJ discusses several reasons for

refusing to credit her subjective pain testimony, the conclusions are “irrational and

wholly inconsistent with the record and notsupported by substantial evidence.”(Doc.

9 at 9.)

Disability benefits may not be paid solely on the basis of a claimant’s own

self-serving complaints. See 42 U.S.C§ 423(d)(5)(A).However, subjective testimony

of pain and other symptoms may establish the presence of a disabling impairment if

it is supported by medical evidence. See Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir.

1995). To establish disability based upon pain and other subjective symptoms, the

Eleventh Circuit has set forth a three-part standard: “The pain standard requires (1)

evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (2) objective medical evidence

that confirms the severity ofthe alleged pain arising from that condition or (3) that the

Page 6 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 6 of 14
objectively determinedmedical condition is ofsuch a severity that it can be reasonably

expected to give rise to the alleged pain.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th

Cir. 2005) (citing Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991)); see also

Landry v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1551, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986).

Once a claimant has met the pain standard, the ALJ may still discredit the

claimant’s subjective testimony of pain and other symptoms if he articulates explicit

and adequate reasons for doing so based on substantial evidence. Wilson v. Barnhart,

284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186

(1996) (“[T]he adjudicator must carefully consider the individual’s statements about

symptoms with the rest of the relevant evidence in the case record in reaching a

conclusion about the credibility of the individual’s statements.”). Although the

Eleventh Circuit does not require explicit findings as to credibility, “‘the implication

must be obvious to the reviewing court.’” Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210 (quoting Foote, 67

F.3d at 1562). “[P]articular phrases or formulations” do not have to be cited in an

ALJ’s credibility determination, but it cannot be a “broad rejection” which is “not

enough to enable [the district court] to conclude that [the ALJ] considered her

medical condition as a whole.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

In this case, the ALJ referenced these regulations in analyzing Plaintiff’s

Page 7 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 7 of 14
subjective complaints of pain. (Tr. at 13.) Specifically, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s

medicallydeterminable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged

symptoms, but the plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and

limiting effects of these symptoms were not credible to the extent they were 

inconsistent with the RFC assessment. (Id.) Meeting the pain standard does not

automatically end the ALJ’s analysis if the ALJ rejects the plaintiff’s complaints for

lack of credibility. See Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560-61 (meeting the judicial pain standard is

only a threshold inquiry and the ALJ may reject the complaints by offering specific

reasons); Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992) (“After considering

a claimant’s complaints of pain [under the above standard], the ALJ may reject them

as not credible, and that determination will be reviewed for substantial evidence.”)

(citing Wilson v.Heckler, 734 F.2d 513, 517 (11th Cir. 1984)). Thus, the ALJfound that

Plaintiff met the pain standard, and then continued in the analysis and evaluated

Plaintiff’s credibility. (Tr. at 15-16.) 

The ALJ found that Ms. Morris’s complaints of pain were not fully credible in

light of the medical evidence of record and the plaintiff’s continuing performance of

daily activities. (Tr. at 14.) The record supports the ALJ’s conclusion regarding

Plaintiff’s credibility. The ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s history oftreatment for back

Page 8 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 8 of 14
pain but determined that “objective findings have not supported the severity of

limitations she alleges.” (Tr. at 15.) The ALJ also called attention to Plaintiff’s history

of treatment for hypertension but again found that she was not severely limited by the

disease because it was well controlled and because of a lack of evidence of end organ

damage related to hypertension. (Id.) See Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1213 n.6

(11th Cir. 2005)( “the mere existence of these impairments does not reveal the extent

to which they limit her ability to work”).

The ALJ appropriately took Plaintiff’s medical regimen into account when

making his decision because improvement of pain while on medication can suggest

that a plaintiff’s pain allegations are not credible. See Stout v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 853,

855 (8th Cir. 1993) (“If an impairment can be controlled by treatment or medication,

it cannot be considered disabling.”); Gross v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1163, 1166 (4th Cir.

1986) (noting that a symptom reasonably controlled by medication or treatment is not

disabling). Plaintiff first reported that her back pain was interfering with her daily

activities in May 2008. (Tr. at 333.) However, she reported improvements in the pain

with the help of various medications. (Tr. at 190, 192, 194.) In August 2009, just one

month before the alleged onset ofthe disability, the plaintiff reported some resolution

of her symptoms with a treatment regimen of Flexeril and Ultram. (Tr. at 188.) Dr.

Page 9 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 9 of 14
Anthony Pitts, Plaintiff’s treating physician at the University of AlabamaBirmingham, decided not to give her an epidural steroid injection for back pain, noting

in his records that “she seem[ed] to be doing fairly well on her current medical

regimen.” (Tr. at 189.) Additional records from the Spain Clinic in November 2009

show thatPlaintiff’s medications were consistently diminishing herpain,with Plaintiff

reporting that her pain was only a five out of ten. (Tr. at 319.) 

Furthermore, the ALJ noted that although treatment notes through 2010

documented Plaintiff’s various pain complaints, there was no evidence of significant

increase in pain or significant functional limitations that would prevent Plaintiff from

performing a medium level of exertional activity. (Tr. at 14-15.) The only instance of

reported increase in pain occurred in January 2010 because Plaintiff had been out of

Lortab for over a month. (Tr. at 220.) Plaintiff did not seek any sort of treatment

between June 2010 and March 2011 (tr. at 308), which further supports the ALJ’s

credibility determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(v); Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1211

(affirming the ALJ’s decision to discredit the plaintiff’s testimony based on the lack

of consistent or routine treatment). The ALJ also pointed to the fact that after March

2011, Plaintiff visited Quality ofLife Health Care and an emergency room, but medical

records from these visits indicated no signs of disabling limitations that would

Page 10 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 10 of 14
“significantly impact her level of functioning.” (Tr. at 15.) Indeed, the treatment

notes from these visits indicated that Plaintiff’s heart was in normal condition (tr. at

267, 291, 315, 357,382, 392, 395, 400) and that her back pain was relieved by pain

medication and did not affect her gait or motor skills. (Tr. at 308-10.) Despite

Plaintiff’s testimony that she has to lie down during the day due to her back pain,

there is also no indication that she reported this symptom to any doctor. (Tr. at 15.)

The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s symptoms are not as limiting as she claims

is thus supported by the lack of any indication of limitation in the medical records.

The ALJ’s credibility determination is further supported by the findings of Dr.

Zakir Khan, the state agency medical consultant who performed a physical

examination of the plaintiff on February 11, 2010. State agency medical consultants

are highly qualified experts in the Social Security disability program, and their

opinions may be entitled to great weight if the evidence supports their opinions. See

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(I); SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180. Dr. Khan’s opinion is

supported by the objective medical findings and consistent with the record as a whole.

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (c)(4); SSR96-6p.TheALJ,therefore, properly relied

on Dr. Khan’s opinion in reaching his conclusions. (Tr. at 15.) Dr. Khan found that

Plaintiff had a normal range of motion in her neck and lumbar spine and noted that she

Page 11 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 11 of 14
had a negative straight leg raising test. (Tr. at 226.) He also stated that there was no

tenderness to palpation over the spine. (Id.) Dr. Khan also explained that Plaintiff’s

gait, heel and toe walking, and fine and gross manipulation were all normal. (Id.) 

While Dr. Khan took note of Plaintiff’s back pain and hypertension, the ALJ

emphasized that Dr. Khan did not state that Plaintiff’s impairments limited her level

of functioning in any way. (Tr. at 15.) Dr. Khan’s assessment thus provides further

evidence to support the ALJ’s credibility finding. Indeed, Ms. Morris has not

challenged the ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Khan’s opinion. 

The ALJ also noted that Ms. Morris’s reports of her daily activities are

“inconsistent with disabling limitations.” (Tr. at 14.) Although not dispositive, a

plaintiff’s activities may show that her condition is not as limiting as she alleged. See

20 C.F.R. § 404.152(c)(3)(I); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186; Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1212;

Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987). Courts have upheld an ALJ’s

adverse credibility determination when it was based in part on the claimant’s stated

ability to take care of her personal needs, including performing errands. See, e.g.,

Parks v. Comm’r, 353 F. App’x 194, 197 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). The ALJ

pointed out that while Plaintiff states she is unable to work, she has continued to

report a high level offunctioning. (Tr. at 144-49.) The plaintiff testified that she is able

Page 12 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 12 of 14
to take care of her personal needs without help, including preparing simple meals

several times a day. (Tr. at 146.) She also explained that she can perform limited

household chores such as dusting (id.), she occasionally goes grocery shopping (tr. at

147), and she takes short walks across the street. (Tr. at 149.) The ALJ also pointed

out that she spends time with others (tr. at 148) and can pay bills, count change, and

handle a savings account. (Tr. at 147.) Plaintiff’s ability to perform these daily tasks

provides additional support to the ALJ’s discrediting of Plaintiff’s testimony of

disabling pain.

In sum, the ALJ specifically addressed Plaintiff’s allegations of pain and

provided explicit reasons for rejecting her testimony as not entirely credible. (Tr. at

14-16.) See Allen v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1200, 1203 (11th Cir. 1989) (ALJ properly

discredited the plaintiff’s testimony where he specifically articulated at least three

reasons for rejecting the plaintiff’s subjective complaints). The objective medical

evidence, including the report of Dr. Khan, and the testimony of the plaintiff, support

the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s impairments are not of such intensity or

persistence that they prevent her from performing a full range of medium work,

including her previous work as an industrial cleaner and poultry farm worker, as well

as a significant number of other jobs in the national economy. (Tr. at 16.) 

Page 13 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 13 of 14
IV. Conclusion

Upon review of the administrative record, and considering all of Ms. Morris’s

arguments, the Court finds the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial

evidence and in accord with the applicable law. A separate order will be entered.

Done this 3rd day of June 2014.

 

L. Scott Coogler

United States District Judge

[160704]

Page 14 of 14

Case 2:13-cv-00660-LSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/14 Page 14 of 14