Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_14-cv-02294/USCOURTS-alnd-7_14-cv-02294-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

JIMMY DALE TERRY,

Claimant,

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-2294-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Claimant, Jimmy Dale Terry, commenced this action on November 26, 2014,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of

the Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”),

and thereby denying his claim for a period of disability, disability insurance, and

supplemental security income benefits. For the reasons stated herein, the court finds

that the Commissioner’s ruling is due to be affirmed.

The court’s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is

a narrow one. The scope of review is limited to determining whether there is

substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the

Commissioner, and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Lamb v.

Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253

FILED

 2015 Oct-21 AM 10:08

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 10
(11th Cir. 1983).

Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s decision is neither supported by

substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legalstandards. Specifically,

claimant asserts that the ALJ should have found him to be disabled under the

requirements of Listing 1.04, and that he improperly determined his residual

functional capacity. Upon review of the record, the court concludes that these

contentions are without merit. 

A. Listing 1.04

The ALJ found that claimant

has no impairment which meets the criteria of any of the listed

impairments described in Appendix 1 of the Regulations. Specifically,

the undersigned has considered Listings 1.03 and 1.04. The evidence of

record does not contain any diagnostic findings, signs, symptoms, or

laboratory resultsthat meet any of the listed impairments. Additionally,

there are no opinions in the record from medical experts or any other

type of medical or psychological consultants designated by the

Commissioner, which indicate that the claimant’s impairments alone or

in combination equal a listing.

1

Claimant contends that the ALJ should have found him disabled pursuant to

Listing 1.04, which requires proof of:

Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal

arachnoiditis, spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease,

facet arthritis, vertebral fracture), resulting in compromise of a nerve

root (including the cauda equina) or the spinal cord. With:

1

 Tr. 85.

2

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 10
A. Evidence of nerve root compression characterized by

neuro-anatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the

spine, motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle weakness or

muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and, if

there is involvement of the lower back, positive straight-leg

raising test (sitting and supine); or

B. Spinal arachnoiditis, confirmed by an operative note or

pathology report of tissue biopsy, or by appropriate medically

acceptable imaging, manifested by severe burning or painful

dysesthesia, resulting in the need for changes in position or

posture more than once every 2 hours; or

C. Lumbar spinalstenosisresulting in pseudoclaudication,

established by findings on appropriate medically acceptable

imaging, manifested by chronic nonradicular pain and weakness,

and resulting in inability to ambulate effectively, as defined in

1.00B2b.

20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, appx. 1, § 1.04 (listings).

TheCommissioner acknowledgesthat claimant has a disorder of the spine,

2

and

it cannot be denied that claimant’s spinal disorder has caused him pain. There also

is some evidence of compromise of the nerve root or spinal cord. Soon after

claimant’s injury in December of 2009, an MRI revealed a burst fracture at T11 with

“associated mild spinal stenosis,” but no “definite abnormality of the spinal cord.”

3

Additionally, Dr. Oluyinka Adediji, the consultative examiner, stated in August 2013

that x-rays of the thoracic spine revealed that the C7-T1 disc space was “moderately

2

 Doc. no. 11 (Commissioner’s brief), at 6.

3

 Tr. 302. 

3

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 3 of 10
narrowed.”4

Indulging claimant’s argument that these records constitute substantial

evidence to support spinal cord compromise for a significant period of time (i.e.,

twelve months or more),5 he can satisfy the prefatory criteria of the Listing.

Even so, there is no evidence to satisfy either the A, B, or C criteria of the

Listing. With regard to the A criteria, there is no evidence of motor loss, sensory or

reflex loss, or positive straight-leg-raising test. With regard to the B criteria, there is

no evidence of spinal arachnoiditis. With regard to the C criteria, there is no evidence

of pseudoclaudication that resulted in an inability to ambulate effectively. Because

claimant cannot satisfy the A, B, or C criteria of Listing 1.04, he does not meet that

Listing.

Claimant also asserts that his back and hip impairments, when considered in

combination, are medically equivalent to the impairments described in Listing 1.04.

6

Social Security regulations provide the following guidance for evaluating medical

equivalence:

(a) What is medical equivalence? Your impairment(s) is medically

equivalent to a listed impairment in appendix 1 of subpart P of part 404

of this chapter if it is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria

4

 Tr. 473. 

5 Whether those two records can constitute substantial evidence of spinal cord compromise

is questionable, because there is other evidence affirmatively suggesting that the spinal cord was not

compromised. An MRI on June 28, 2011 revealed “no significant stenosis or impingement” in

claimant’s lumbar spine, and “no central canal stenosis in thoracic spine.” Tr. 451. X-ray results

from December 17, 2011 revealed “no significant narrowing of the spinal canal.” Tr. 427. 

6

 Claimant does not argue functional equivalence. 

4

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 4 of 10
of any listed impairment.

(b) How do we determine medical equivalence? We can find medical

equivalence in three ways.

(1) (i) If you have an impairment that is described in the

Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 of subpart P of part

404 of this chapter, but—

(A) You do not exhibit one or more of the findings

specified in the particular listing, or

(B) You exhibit all of the findings, but one or

more of the findings is not as severe as

specified in the particular listing,

(ii) We will find that your impairment is medically

equivalent to that listing if you have other findings related

to your impairment that are at least of equal medical

significance to the required criteria.

(2) If you have an impairment(s) that is not described in the

Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 of subpart P of part 404 of

this chapter, we will compare your findings with those for closely

analogous listed impairments. If the findings related to your

impairment(s) are at least of equal medical significance to those

of a listed impairment, we will find that your impairment(s) is

medically equivalent to the analogous listing.

(3) If you have a combination of impairments, no one of which

meets a listing described in the Listing of Impairments in

appendix 1 of subpart P of part 404 of this chapter (see §

416.925(c)(3)), we will compare your findings with those for

closely analogous listed impairments. If the findings related to

your impairments are at least of equal medical significance to

those of a listed impairment, we will find that your combination

of impairments is medically equivalent to that listing.

5

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 5 of 10
20 C.F.R. § 416.926(a)-(b). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(a)-(b). 

The impairmentsresulting fromclaimant’s hip and back conditions, even when

considered together, are not of equal medical significance to Listing 1.04. Claimant

undeniably has suffered injury to his spinal cord and hip, and those injuries

undeniably have resulted in some pain and limitation of function. Those limitations,

however, are better addressed through the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding. 

They do not have the same medical significance as the neurological abnormalities

addressed by Listing 1.04.

B. Residual Functional Capacity Finding

The ALJ found that, despite his impairments, claimant retained the residual

functional capacity to 

perform sedentary work . . . except the operation of foot controls

bilaterally is limited to no more than occasional. The claimant can never

climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and can never crouch or crawl. The

claimant can no more than occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance,

stoop, and kneel. The claimant can have no more than occasional

exposure to extreme cold and heat, humidity, wetness, excessive

vibrations, and pulmonary irritants such as dust, fumes, odors, and

gases. The claimant can never operate or control hazardous, moving

machinery, can do no commercial driving, and can never work around

unprotected heights.

7

Claimant assertsthat the residualfunctional capacity finding was notsupported

by substantial evidence because his pain and other subjective symptoms prevent him

7

 Tr. 85-86. 

6

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 6 of 10
from performing even the limited range of work specified by the ALJ. To

demonstrate that pain or another subjective symptom renders him disabled, claimant

must “produce ‘evidence of an underlying medical condition and (1) objective

medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from that

condition or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such severity

that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged pain.’” Edwards v.

Sullivan, 937 F. 2d 580, 584 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Landry v. Heckler, 782 F.2d

1551, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986)). If an ALJ discredits subjective testimony on pain, “he

must articulate explicit and adequate reasons.” Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011

(11th Cir. 1987) (citing Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001, 1004 (11th Cir. 1986);

MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1054 (11th Cir. 1986)). Furthermore, “[a]fter

considering a claimant’s complaints of pain, the ALJ may reject them as not

creditable, and that determination will be reviewed for substantial evidence.”

Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Wilson v. Heckler,

734 F.2d 513, 517 (11th Cir. 1984)) (alteration supplied). 

The ALJ properly applied these legal principles. He found that claimant’s

medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the

symptoms claimant alleged, but he nonetheless concluded that claimant’sstatements

about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not

7

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 7 of 10
credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the residual functional capacity

finding.

8 The ALJ reasoned that claimant’s physicians had encouraged him to

increase his activities, and that his pain appeared to be well-controlled with

medication.

9 The ALJ also noted that, while claimant testified to feeling groggy and

being unable to concentrate while on his pain medications, he had not complained

about those side effects to his pain management physician. The ALJ attempted to

accommodate any side effects claimant might experience by limiting himto sedentary

activity.

10 The ALJ also concluded that claimant’s daily activities — including

personal care, preparing simple meals, grocery shopping, hunting, and helping care

for his children — were “not as limited as one would expect given the complaints of

totally disabling symptoms.”11 Finally, the ALJ considered the opinion of Dr.

Adediji, the consultative examiner, but assigned evenmore limitationsthan the doctor

recommended, in order to accommodate claimant’sreported ability to stand and walk

for only three hours during an eight-hour work day.

12

Claimant disagrees with the ALJ’sinterpretation of the medicalrecords and the

ALJ’s conclusions about his ability to work. Even though there is some evidence to

8

 Tr. 86. 

9

 Tr. 87. 

10

 Tr. 88. 

11

Id. 

12

Id. Dr. Adediji recommended a limited range of light work, while the ALJ imposed a

limited range of sedentary work. 

8

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 8 of 10
support the limitations alleged by claimant, there also is substantial evidence to

support the ALJ’s determinations. Claimant can only succeed by demonstrating that

the ALJ’s decision lacks substantial evidentiary support in the record, and claimant

has not done that. Most of the evidence relied upon by claimant consists of his own

testimony about his pain and limitations, or notations by the treating and examining

physicians that he experiences pain or suffers from an impairment in his back and/or

hip. However, the mere existence of an impairment, a medical condition, or even

pain does not determine disability. Instead, the relevant consideration is the effect of

claimant’s impairment, or combination of impairments, on his ability to perform

substantial gainful work activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a)

(defining a disability as “the inability to do 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”). See also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146

(1987) (“The [Social Security] Act ‘defines “disability” in terms of the effect a

physical or mental impairment has on a person’s ability to function in the

workplace.’”) (quoting Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 459-60 (1983)). Here,

the ALJ’s conclusion that claimant’s pain and underlying condition did not result in

disabling functional limitations is supported by substantial evidence. 

9

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 9 of 10
Consistent with the foregoing, the court concludes the ALJ’s decision was

based upon substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable legal standards. 

Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Costs are taxed

against claimant. The Clerk is directed to close this file.

DONE this 21st day of October, 2015.

______________________________

United States District Judge

10

Case 7:14-cv-02294-CLS Document 13 Filed 10/21/15 Page 10 of 10