Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00331/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00331-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SARA ALICE GILBERT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv331-TFM

) (WO)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

COMMISSIONER OF )

SOCIAL SECURITY, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Sara Alice Gilbert (“Gilbert”) applied for supplemental security income

benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., alleging that

she is unable to work because of a disability. Her application was denied at the initial

administrative level. Gilbert 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 by 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”).1

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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the

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

Security matters were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security.

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 1 of 14
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 is due to 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,2

 the Commissioner employs a five-step, sequential

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.”

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

2

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

abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

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) (Unit A).

2

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 2 of 14
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 (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). 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).

III. Administrative Proceedings

Gilbert was 52 years old during the hearing and completed the tenth grade of high

school. (R. 47-48.) Gilbert has prior work experience as a short-order cook. (R. 37, 49, 57.)

Gilbert alleges that she became disabled on April 9, 2007, from back and neck pain, carpal

tunnel syndrome, high blood pressure, and headaches. (R. 50-51, 54, 56.) After the hearing,

the ALJ found that Gilbert suffers from severe impairments of mild obesity; bilateral carpal

tunnel syndrome, mild right, moderate on the left; mild degenerative disc disease of the

cervical spine; and gastroesophageal reflux disease and non-severe impairments of benign

3

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 3 of 14
hypertension and history of asthma. (R. 24.) The ALJ also found that Gilbert is unable to

perform her past relevant work, but that she retains the residual functional capacity to perform

less than the full range of light work. (R. 30.) Testimony from the vocational expert led the

ALJ to conclude that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that Gilbert

may perform, such as work as a ticket seller, garment sorter, and mail clerk. (R. 33.)

IV. The Plaintiff’s Claims

As stated by Gilbert, she presents the following issue for the court’s review:

Whether the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration denying benefits to Plaintiff is supported by substantial

evidence and whether improper legal standards were applied.

Specifically, the ALJ erred in failing to fully develop the record and in failing

to find favorably under the medical vocational rules.

(Doc. No. 13, Pl. Brief, p. 1.) 

V. Discussion

A. The Duty to Develop the Record

Gilbert argues that the ALJ should have resolved inconsistences in the record by recontacting Dr. Kishore Chivulka, a consultative psychologist, eliciting additional testimony

from a medical expert, or obtaining another consultative examination. Specifically, Gilbert

claims that an ambiguity exists because the results of a nerve conduction study were not

incorporated into Dr. Chivulka’s report to the Commissioner. Gilbert argues that “in light of

the fact that Dr. Chivulka’s reference to [the nerve conduction study] ends in a sentence

fragment . . . it does appear to have been done afterwards. . . .” (Doc. No. 13, p. 6.) Gilbert

also contends that Dr. Chivulka’s determination that she is able to use both hands constantly

4

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 4 of 14
for pushing, pulling, handling, fingering, and feeling is inconsistent with the results of the

nerve conduction study. (Id., p. 7.) 

An administrative law judge has a duty to develop a full and fair record. Kelley v.

Heckler, 761 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1985). When there is a conflict, inconsistency, or

ambiguity in the record, the ALJ has an obligation to resolve the conflict, giving specific

reasons supported by the evidence as to why he accepted or rejected an opinion regarding the

plaintiff’s capacity for work. See Baker v. Astrue, No. 1:11cv35-CSC (M.D. Ala. 2012). See

also Battle v. Astrue, 243 Fed. Appx. 514, 523 (11th Cir. 2007). 

During the hearing on September 4, 2008, the ALJ determined that an evaluation by

a consultative neurologist and an EMG nerve conduction study of Gilbert’s hands and arms

were necessary. (R. 58.) The ALJ subsequently ordered a consultative examination and

additional testing. The medical records indicate that, on September 25, 2008, Dr. Chivulka

conducted an examination of Gilbert, administered a nerve conduction study and completed

both a neurological evaluation for disability report and a medical source opinion form. (R.

315-323.) 

Dr. Chivuluka’s report concerning his clinical impression of Gilbert’s evaluation does

contain one isolated sentence fragment. Specifically, Dr. Chivuluka noted:

Presents for evaluation of multiple complaints. History is not

consistent. Clinical examination does not show significant

pathology. Nerve conduction studies and EMG of both upper

extremities was performed and t

(R. 316.) Gilbert places great emphasis on this grammatical error, arguing that the sentence

fragment establishes that Dr. Chivuluka did not review the nerve conduction study before

5

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 5 of 14
entering his findings in the report and medical source opinion form. Dr. Chivuluka’s notes,

however, clearly indicate that “[n]erve conducting studies and EMG of both upper extremities

w[ere] performed” before he prepared the disability report. (Id.) More importantly, the

medical records indicate that Dr. Chivuluka was the administrator of the nerve conduction

study referenced in the report. Thus, the medical evidence clearly establishes that Dr.

Chivuluka was aware of the results of the nerve conduction study at the time he prepared his

report. 

The court finds that Dr. Chivuluka’s summary of the nerve conduction study is not in

any way inconsistent with the conclusions in the disability report or his findings in the

medical source opinion form. In his summary of the nerve conduction study, Dr. Chivuluka

found as follows:

NCS:

1. Delayed peak latency, normal SNAP amplitude and slow nerve

conduction velocity in fingers to wrist segment of the right

median sensory nerve. Delayed peak latency, low SNAP

amplitude (D2) only and normal nerve conduction velocity in the

fingers to wrist segment of the left median sensory nerve.

2. Delayed peak latency, low SNAP amplitude and slow nerve

conduction velocity in fingers to wrist segments of the right and

left ulnar sensory nerves.

3. Prolonged terminal latencies, normal F-latencies, normal CMAP

amplitude and normal nerve conduction velocity of the right and

left median motor nerves.

4. Normal terminal and F-latencies, normal CMAP amplitude and

normal nerve conduction velocity of the right ulnar motor nerve. 

Prolonged terminal latency, normal F-latency, normal CMAP

amplitude and normal nerve conduction velocity of the left ulnar

6

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 6 of 14
motor nerve.

EMG:

Normal resting activity, normal insertional activity, normal motor unit

amplitude and duration with normal recruitment pattern in all tested muscles of

the right and left upper extremities. Normal needle EMG of right and left

cervical paraspinal muscles. 

Conclusion:

These electrophysiological findings are indicative of moderate carpal tunnel

syndrome, moderate on left and mild on right. There is no evidence for ulnar

neuropathy.

(R. 323.) 

In the medical source opinion form, Dr. Chivuluka found that Gilbert has the residual

functional capacity to lift and carry ten to fifteen pounds constantly and twenty pounds

frequently; push or pull and reach overhead with both arms and handle constantly; and handle,

finger, and feel with both hands constantly. Gilbert argues that the ALJ should have obtained

additional information from Dr. Chivuluka or another consultative physician to determine

whether a finding that she is able to use both hands constantly is consistent with the results

of the nerve conduction study indicating that she suffers from moderate carpal tunnel

syndrome on the left and mild carpal tunnel syndrome on the right. Although Dr. Chivuluka

did not differentiate between Gilbert’s left and right hands when determining she is able to

use handle, finger, and feel constantly, Dr. Chivuluka’s findings that Gilbert is right handed,

is able to oppose thumbs to fingertips and suffers from moderate carpal tunnel syndrome on

the left coupled with mild on the right without ulnar neuropathy supports his conclusion that

Gilbert is able to perform certain hand functions on a constant basis. This court therefore

7

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 7 of 14
concludes that there is no ambiguity or inconsistency with respect to Dr. Chivuluka’s findings

concerning Gilbert’s ability to use her hands. 

Even assuming arguendo that Dr. Chivuluka’s opinion was inconsistent with the

objective medical evidence, the court concludes that the ALJ adequately developed the record

by consulting a medical expert, Dr. James Anderson, at the supplemental hearing. “Medical

experts are considered experts in the Social Security disability programs and their opinions

may be entitled to great weight if their opinions are supported by the evidence in the record.” 

Skrzynski v. Astrue, No. 2:11cv36-SPC, 2011 WL 5357818, *6 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citing 20

C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(b)(6), 404.1527(f)(2)(I)(iii), 413.912(b)(6), 416.927(f)(2)(l)(iii), and SSR

96-6p). During the hearing, the following exchange occurred:

Representative : Doctor, if I understood your testimony correctly, the

claimant has more problems with her left hand than with

her right?

Medical Expert: Yes, sir.

Representative: And would that – the problems she has, would that affect

her ability for fine or gross manipulation or both?

Medical Expert: It would both limit her use of that hand for both

(INAUDIBLE) to only occasional.

Representative: Okay, I have nothing further, Your Honor.

ALJ: That on the left, is that what you’re --

Medical Expert: Yes, sir on the left. On the right she’d be able to use it

frequently.

(R. 39-40.) Thus, the medical expert testified that Gilbert would be able to perform both fine

and gross manipulation with her left hand occasionally and with her right hand frequently. 

8

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 8 of 14
Dr. Anderson’s testimony is supported by the objective medical records. (R. 321-323.) The

court therefore concludes that the ALJ adequately developed the record and resolved any

inconsistencies in Dr. Chivuluka’s medical records concerning Gilbert’s ability to use her

hands by consulting a medical expert. The court also notes that the ALJ included Dr.

Anderson’s opinion that the claimant would be able to occasionally perform fine and gross

manipulation with her left hand and frequently perform those activities with her right in his

hypothetical question to the vocational expert. 

Given the medical records indicating that Gilbert is right-hand dominant with carpal

tunnel syndrome which is mild on the right and moderate on the left and Dr. Anderson’s

opinion that Gilbert would be able to use her right hand frequently and her left hand

occasionally, the court concludes that the ALJ did not err in failing to seek an additional

consultative examination or otherwise develop the record. See Holladay v. Bowen, 848 F.2d

1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1988) (The ALJ is not required to order a consultative examination

unless the record demonstrates that an examination is necessary for the ALJ to render a

decision.). 

B. The Medical-Vocational Guidelines

Gilbert contends that the ALJ improperly applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines,

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 2 (“Grids”) because Rule 201.14 establishes that she is

disabled. According to Gilbert, the ALJ improperly concluded that she could perform light

work when, under the Guidelines, her exertional limitations establish she can perform no more

than sedentary work.

9

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 9 of 14
Exclusive reliance on the grids is appropriate only when a claimant has no nonexertional impairments that significantly limit her basic work activities. Foote v. Chater, 67

F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995); Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834 (11th Cir. 1985). 

[I]n determining residual functional capacity only exertional limitations are

considered . . . If a claimant has nonexertional impairments that significantly

limit the ability to do basic work activities . . . then the grid regulations do not

apply. . . . However, when both exertional and nonexertional work impairments

exist the grids may still be applicable. [N]on–exertional limitations can cause

the grid to be inapplicable only when the limitations are severe enough to

prevent a wide range of gainful employment at a designated level. Therefore,

when both exertional and nonexertional limitations affect a claimant’s ability

to work, the ALJ should make a specific finding as to whether the

nonexertional limitations are severe enough to preclude a wide range of

employment at the given work capacity level indicated by the exertional

limitations. Courts will review this determination only to determine whether

it is supported by substantial evidence.

Sryock, 764 F.2d at 836 (internal citations omitted).

The crux of Gilbert’s claim concerns the ALJ’s determination that she could perform

less than the full range of light work. Gilbert argues that the ALJ should have found her to

be capable of no more than sedentary work based on her obesity and postural limitations, such

as her inability to heel, toe, or tandem walk and her significant difficulty in squatting and

rising, as well as her upper extremity limitations. The Social Security Administration has

developed a sequential evaluation process to determine if a plaintiff is disabled. 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1520 and 416.920. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to demonstrate an inability to

return to her past relevant work. Lucas, supra. After a plaintiff has shown that she cannot

perform her past relevant work, the burden then falls upon the Commissioner to show that

there are other jobs in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. Jones v. Apfel, 190

10

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 10 of 14
F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999).

The ALJ determined by expert vocational testimony that there are other light jobs that

Gilbert could perform in the national economy within the limitations of her impairments. 

During the hearing, the following exchange between the ALJ and vocational expert occurred:

Q: Okay. Well, for our first hypothetical then, let me ask you to

assume a person of the claimant’s age, she’s in the age range of

51 to 52, and she has a 10th grade education, and this past

relevant work history. She is right-hand dominant, based on

previous testimony. Now, for our hypothetical, I’d like to adopt

the limitations set out at Exhibit 12F, pages four to six. I believe

that’s the relevant pages. We will modify that slightly based on

Dr. Anderson’s testimony. Briefly indicated, as far as handling

and fingering, that would be occasionally for the left and

frequently for the right. Now, based on that information, could

you give me your opinion whether such a person could do – oh,

I’m going to assess mild to moderate pain by the way, which

occasionally interferes with concentration, persistence and pace. 

Let me just make a note. . . . All right, based on that information,

could you give me your opinion of whether such a person would

be capable of doing any of the claimant’s past relevant work?

A: Your Honor, past relevant work would be precluded.

Q: Okay. Now are there any other jobs that such a person could do?

A: Yes, Your Honor. 

Q: Okay. If you could give some examples.

A: All right. Several examples would be ticket seller, this is DOT

number 411.407-030, this job is light and unskilled work with an

SVP: 2, 1,000 of these jobs exist regionally, regionally referring

to the State of Alabama; 200, 700,000 or more exist nationally. 

A second example would be a garment sorter, this is DOT

number 222.687-014, this [] job is light unskilled work with an

SVP: 2, 2,000 of these jobs exist regionally; 429,000 or more

exist nationally. A third example, would be a mail clerk, with the

exception of U.S. postal service employees, this is DOT number

11

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 11 of 14
209.687-026, this is light, unskilled work with an SVP: 2. . . .

(R. 42.) 

During the colloquy, the ALJ incorporated Exhibit 12F, which includes Dr.

Chivuluka’s medical source opinion regarding Gilbert’s limitations. In the medical source

opinion, Dr. Chivuluka found that Gilbert is able to lift or carry ten to fifteen pounds

constantly and twenty pounds frequently; push or pull with both arms and legs constantly;

climb, balance, crouch, crawl occasionally; stoop and kneel frequently; and handle, finger,

feel, talk, hear, and reach overhead constantly. (R. 317-318.) The consultative neurologist

also found that Gilbert is able to work in extreme cold, heat, humidity, and vibration

frequently, as well as work around fumes, dust, or poor ventilation occasionally. (R. 319.) 

In a handwritten note on page 6 of the opinion, Dr. Chivuluka advises the reader to “pl[ease]

refer to dictated notes.” (R. 318.) In the typewritten and/or dictated report which was

prepared on the same day as the medical source opinion, Dr. Chivuluka provides more

specific details concerning Gilbert’s limitations. For example, he found that Gilbert weighs

201 pounds and her flexion and extension movements of the thoraco lumbar spine are limited

due to body habitus. (R. 315-316.) Dr. Chivuluka also found that Gilbert’s gate was normal

and that she has significant difficulty in squatting and raising from the squatting position. (R.

316.) He concluded his report as follows:

Physical CE emphasis Sheet addition:

Based on my medical findings, in my opinion about the claimant’s ability,

despite the impairments, to do work related activities such as standing, walking,

lifting, carrying, handling, sitting, hearing, speaking and traveling are possible.

12

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 12 of 14
(Id.) Thus, the ALJ met his responsibility by incorporating the report which referred to

Gilbert’s specific physical limitations into his hypothetical question to the vocational expert

concerning her ability to perform light work jobs. See Jones, supra.

In addition, the ALJ relied heavily on the opinion of Dr. Chivuluka when determining

Gilbert has the residual functional capacity to perform light work. This court’s review of the

medical records indicates that the ALJ’s findings concerning Gilbert’s limitations are

consistent with Dr. Chivuluka’s opinion. Consequently, the ALJ’s reliance on Dr.

Chivuluka’s opinion regarding Gilbert’s work restrictions is supported by substantial

evidence.4

 Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that the ALJ’s determination that,

based on Gilbert’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity for light

work, with restrictions which include simple grasping, fine manipulation and feel with her

right hand frequently and her left hand occasionally; climbing, balancing, crouching, and

crawling occasionally; and working in or around extreme temperatures and other

environmental factors frequently, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the

national economy that she can perform is supported by substantial evidence. This court must

accept the factual findings of the Commissioner if they are supported by substantial evidence

and based upon the proper legal standards. Bridges v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1987). 

4

 Gilbert argues that the ALJ erred by failing to properly designate the weight to which he assigned

each medical opinion. After reviewing all the medical evidence and Gilbert’s testimony, the ALJ determined

that Gilbert was not disabled. The ALJ heavily relied on the opinion of Dr. Chivuluka in his analysis. Even

though the ALJ did not specifically state the specific weight he assigned to each piece of evidence, the ALJ

recited all the applicable law and detailed all the relevant medical evidence. More importantly, even if it was

error, it is harmless. The opinion of the ALJ shows that he carefully considered the evidence in this case and

was extremely familiar with it. A remand is not required on this basis. 

13

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 13 of 14
VI. Conclusion

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

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that the 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 final judgment will be entered.

Done this the 28th day of February, 2012.

/s/ Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

Case 2:11-cv-00331-TFM Document 16 Filed 02/28/12 Page 14 of 14