Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_14-cv-00627/USCOURTS-alnd-4_14-cv-00627-0/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

MIDDLE DIVISION

TIMOTHY LAKE FARMER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

)

Case No. 4:14-CV-00627-TMP

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Introduction

The plaintiff, Timothy L. Farmer, appeals from the decision of the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying 

his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Mr. Farmer timely 

pursued and exhausted his administrative remedies and the decision of the 

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

Mr. Farmer was thirty-eight years old at the time of the Administrative Law 

Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) decision, and he has a high school education and is able to 

communicate in English. (Tr. at 34). His past work experience includes

employment as a meter reader, tire changer, assembler, parts picker, forklift driver, 

Page 1 of 15

FILED

 2015 Jul-20 PM 04:10

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 15
lube technician, and automobile salesman. Id. Mr. Farmer claims that he became 

disabled on October 12, 2008, due to disorders of the lower back. (Tr. at 30).

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 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. Part 404, Subpart P, 

Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant’s 

impairments fall within this category, he will be found disabled without further 

consideration. Id. If they do not, a determination of the claimant’s residual 

Page 2 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 15
functional capacity will be made and the analysis proceeds to the fourth step. 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). Residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is an 

assessment, based on all relevant evidence, of a claimant’s remaining ability to do 

work despite his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.945(a)(1).

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

impairments prevent him 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 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 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. The burden is on the Commissioner 

to demonstrate that other jobs exist which the claimant can perform; and, once that 

burden is met, the claimant must prove his inability to perform those jobs in order 

to be found disabled. Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999).

Applying the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Mr. Farmer

meets the non-disability requirements for a period of disability and DIB and was

insured through the date of his decision. (Tr. at 30). He further determined that 

Mr. Farmer had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset 

Page 3 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 15
of his disability in October 2008. Id. According to the ALJ, Mr. Farmer’s 

“disorders of the low back” are “severe” based on the requirements set forth in the 

regulations because the disorders significantly limit Mr. Farmer’s ability to 

perform basic work activities. Id. However, the ALJ determined that Mr. 

Farmer’s obesity is not severe under the regulations.

1 (Tr. at 30). The ALJ noted 

that “the claimant alleges no limitations due to his obesity, and no physician has 

placed any restrictions on him due to his obesity.” Id. He found that these 

impairments neither meet nor medically equal any of the listed impairments in 20 

C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. at 31). The ALJ did not find Mr. 

Farmer’s allegations regarding the limiting effects of his lower-back pain to be 

totally credible, and he determined that he has the following residual functional 

capacity: “light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) that allows for no work on 

uneven surfaces, occasional stooping, use of a cane, no exposure to continuous 

vibrations, and no work around unprotected heights.” Id.

According to the ALJ, Mr. Farmer is unable to perform any of his past 

relevant work.

2 He determined that “transferability of job skills is not material to 

the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a 

1 This finding is not contested by the claimant.

2 The ALJ qualified his determination by stating that, “[w]hile the expert testified that some auto 

sales jobs can be performed based on the claimant’s residual functional capacity, there are issues 

with respect to the recency and duration of the claimant’s work in auto sales that call into 

question whether the job qualifies as past relevant work. Thus, I find that further evaluation of 

the sequential evaluation process is in order out of an abundance of caution.” (Tr. at 34).

Page 4 of 15

 

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 4 of 15
framework supports a finding that the claimant is ‘not disabled,’ whether or not the 

claimant has transferable job skills.” (Tr. at 34). Although Mr. Farmer’s ability to 

perform all or substantially all of the requirements of light work is affected by 

additional limitations, through use of expert testimony, the ALJ determined that 

jobs exist in the national economy that an individual of Mr. Farmer’s age, with his

education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, can perform. (Tr. at 

35). Some of these jobs are ticket seller, assembler of electrical accessories, and 

marker II. Id. The ALJ concluded his findings by stating that Mr. Farmer “has not 

been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from October 12, 

2008, through the date of this decision.” 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 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 

Page 5 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 5 of 15
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. Federal 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 review of 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 apply the correct 

legal standards is grounds for reversal. See Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629, 635 

(11th Cir. 1984).

The court must keep in mind that opinions such as whether a claimant is 

disabled, the nature and extent of a claimant’s residual functional capacity, and the 

application of vocational factors “are not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, 

opinions on issues reserved to the commissioner because they are administrative 

findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct the determination or 

Page 6 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 6 of 15
decision of disability.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(d). Whether the 

plaintiff meets the listing and is qualified for Social Security disability benefits is a 

question reserved for the ALJ, and the court “may not decide facts anew, reweigh 

the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the Commissioner.” Dyer v. 

Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). Thus, even if the court were to 

disagree with the ALJ about the significance of certain facts, the court has no 

power to reverse that finding as long as there is substantial evidence in the record 

supporting it. 

III. Discussion

Mr. Farmer alleges that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed and remanded

because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the credibility of the Plaintiff’s 

testimony of disabling symptoms consistent with the Eleventh Circuit pain 

standard. Specifically, Mr. Farmer alleges that “the ALJ’s decision that he does 

not meet the pain standard is based on his erroneous negative credibility findings 

as to his subjective pain testimony.” (Doc. 12, p. 4). 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, 

“[t]he pain standard requires (1) evidence of an underlying medical condition and 

Page 7 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 7 of 15
either (2) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain 

arising from that condition or (3) that the objectively determined medical condition 

is of such 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).

The ALJ is permitted to discredit the claimant’s subjective testimony of pain 

and other symptoms if he or she articulates explicit and adequate reasons for doing 

so, and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 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 or this 

Court] to conclude that [the ALJ] considered [his] medical condition as a whole.” 

Id. (internal quotations omitted). In the present case, the ALJ found that Mr. 

Page 8 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 8 of 15
Farmer meets the first prong of the Eleventh Circuit’s pain standard, but that the 

evidence does not support the severity of the alleged pain arising from the lower 

back disorders. (Tr. at 32). Specifically, the ALJ determined that Mr. Farmer’s 

statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the lower 

back pain are not credible to the extent that they are inconsistent with objective 

medical evidence in the record. Id.

Throughout his analysis, the ALJ found inconsistencies between Mr. 

Farmer’s allegations at the disability hearing and the objective medical evidence 

provided in the record. 

In terms of the claimant’s back-related pain, the objective medical 

evidence and other evidence indicate that he retains the ability to 

perform work activity on a sustained basis within the parameters of 

the above-stated residual functional capacity. It is true that 

approximately consistent with his alleged onset date, he presented to 

the emergency department in September 2008 with low back pain 

complaints, and radiological findings revealed moderate spinal canal 

stenosis and mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing at L4-L5 

secondary to a broad-based bulge, facet arthropathy, and ligamentum 

flavum hypertrophy (Exhibit 1F). He was prescribed pain medication 

for his back at a follow-up visit in September 2008 (Exhibit 2F). 

Records indicate he was doing well until December 25, 2008, and he 

then began seeking treatment for his back pain at the VA shortly 

thereafter (Exhibit 6F, p. 118).

While VA and other records indicate the general need for narcotic 

pain medication to control pain, there were a number of visits in 

which clinical and radiological findings, as well as the degree of 

reported pain complaints, are not supportive of debilitating pain as 

alleged at the hearing. For example, no pain was reported in January 

Page 9 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 9 of 15
2009, and “no spinal tenderness” was recorded at that time (Exhibit 

6F, p. 107). Also, an MRI of the lumbar spine in February 2009 

revealed focal degenerative discogenic and facet osteoarthropathy 

involving L4-L5 disc space but with only mild narrowing of both 

existing spinal foramina and without spinal nerve impingement or 

displacement (Exhibit 6F, p. 98). The claimant then began physical 

therapy in March 2009 (Exhibit 3F). By April 2009, no spinal 

tenderness and normal motor strength were noted (Exhibit 6F, p. 87), 

and it was even reported that he moved his household in April 2009 

(Exhibit 3F, p. 4). Further undermining the severity of his symptoms, 

he was also only prescribed a non-narcotic in May 2009 (Exhibit 6F, 

p. 32/84) and was discharged from physical therapy for 

noncompliance in July 2009 (Exhibit 3F). Additionally, he reported 

pain at only a 3/10 intensity in August 2009, and again “no spinal 

tenderness” was noted (Exhibit 6F, p. 76). Treatment notes in 

October 2009 indicate basically unremarkable findings on physical 

exams and that he was even using a riding lawnmower (Exhibit 6F, 

pp. 61-68). He was prescribed morphine on February 18, 2010 and 

scheduled for an L4-L5 epidural steroid injection (see also Exhibit 

SF), but clinical findings were normal (Exhibit 6F, pp. 50-52). He 

then had 0/ 10 pain complaint at a visit on February 25, 2010 and was 

seeking a handicapped tag because of numbness after walking at the 

mall (Exhibit 6F, p. 43). Furthermore, an MRI of the lumbar spine in 

April 2010 revealed only mild degenerative changes at L4-L5 with 

stable mild central canal and bilateral neuroforaminal narrowing 

(Exhibit 6F, p. 1). When the claimant presented to a treating source, 

Beau Bagley, M.D., for a disability physical in May 2010, Dr. Bagley 

noted some ambulatory and musculoskeletal deficits but also noted 

that the claimant reported doing yard work and had no problem sitting 

during the duration of the interview (Exhibit 7F).

Additional medical records are likewise not supportive of the 

claimant’s debilitating pain allegations. While he alleged an average 

pain at 7/10 to 9/10 in intensity at the hearing, he reported pain at 1/10 

or 5/10 in July 2010 with only a mild impact on hobbies and moderate 

impact on chores, sex life, and social life (Exhibit 10F, pp. 79-86). 

There was indication of an intensity of symptoms in August 2010, 

which necessitated the provider’s prescription for lidocaine patches 

and submission of paperwork for a parking placard, but the provider 

noted that the claimant was not in apparent distress and had a negative 

Page 10 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 10 of 15
straight leg raise (Exhibit 10F, pp. 73-76). And while the claimant 

sought emergency treatment on September 4, 2010 for lower back

pain, the provider remarked that there were “no focal findings or red 

flags on exam” (Exhibit 10F, pp. 65-70). Pain was then rated only 

3/10 on September 23, 2010 (Exhibit 10F, p. 60). Moreover, lessened 

impact of pain compared to July 2010 was reported in October 2010 

in that pain had only a moderate impact on walking and a mild impact 

on sex life and social life (Exhibit 10F, p. 53). He then reported less 

pain at a follow-up visit in December 2010 than alleged at the hearing: 

6/10 (Exhibit 10F, p. 45).

Similarly, reports through 2011 are not inconsistent with the above 

finding. While the claimant sought treatment at a Tampa VA pain 

rehabilitation facility in March 2011, those records indicate his 

medication regimen is helpful and that he can perform exercises and 

ambulate independently (Exhibit 11F, p. 9). Those records also 

indicate a lifestyle more active than alleged at the hearing such as 

helping his mother with odd jobs and performing yard work (Exhibit 

11F, p. 16). Other treatment records through the summer of 2011 

indicate that he is “able to function well on morphine” and that 

although bending can aggravate his pain, he can do “light” work 

(Exhibit 12F). It is also important to note that he conceded at the 

hearing of December 2011 that he can lift up to 20 pounds.

With respect to the claimant’s alleged side effects, the above 

precautions sufficiently accommodate him in that regard. As just 

mentioned, a provider indicated that he can function well on a 

narcotic. And again, he does house and yard work, as well as walks at 

the mall. Treatment records otherwise indicate that medications have 

been adjusted as needed and that he is often observed as alert and 

oriented despite the use of narcotics.

(Tr. at 32-33).

Mr. Farmer’s primary complaint is that the ALJ failed to appreciate the

medical records as a whole, and opted to “pick and choose” instead those portions 

Page 11 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 11 of 15
of the record suggesting less pain that otherwise reflected in the record. (Doc. 12, 

pp. 5-6). He lists multiple visits where he rated his pain intensity between 7/10 and 

10/10. (Doc. 12, pp. 6-7). Although the ALJ did not address each medical visit 

where Mr. Farmer rated his pain as high on the intensity scale, the ALJ did 

acknowledge that Mr. Farmer indicated at the hearing that “his pain level ranges 

from 7/10 to 9/10 in intensity.” (Tr. at 32). “[T]here is no rigid requirement that 

the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision, so long as the 

ALJ’s decision . . . is not a broad rejection which is not enough to enable [the 

district court or this Court] to conclude that [the ALJ] considered [his] medical 

condition as a whole.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) 

(internal citations omitted). A review of the ALJ’s RFC determination persuades 

the court that the ALJ did consider Mr. Farmer’s medical condition as a whole. 

The ALJ’s consideration of the evidence was not an arbitrary and broad dismissal. 

After considering the entire record, the ALJ determined that Mr. Farmer has the 

RFC to perform light work with several limitations. The fact that the ALJ did not 

refer to every high pain rating in Mr. Farmer’s medical record does not indicate 

that his determination was not supported by substantial evidence. 

Mr. Farmer also contends that the ALJ failed to correctly evaluate the 

activities of daily life that were used to discredit his subjective testimony. (Doc. 

12, p. 7). Specifically, he quotes Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1346, 1441 (11th 

Page 12 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 12 of 15
Cir. 1997), in which the court held that “participation in everyday activities of 

short duration, such as housework or fishing does not disqualify a claimant from 

disability.” (Doc. 12, p. 7). However, Mr. Farmer mischaracterizes the ALJ’s use 

of activity evidence. The ALJ does not use evidence of Mr. Farmer’s daily 

activities to disqualify him from receiving disability. He does, however, reference 

various activities Mr. Farmer participates in to illustrate that Mr. Farmer’s 

subjective pain testimony is not credible. The ALJ notes evidence from the record 

that Mr. Farmer “moved his household,” was “using a riding lawnmower,” and was 

performing odd jobs for his mother. (Tr. at 32). He also notes that the Tampa VA 

pain rehabilitation facility records indicate that Mr. Farmer, as of March 2011, 

could “perform exercises and ambulate independently.” (Tr. at 32, 33). The ALJ 

notes that the Tampa VA records “indicate a lifestyle more active than alleged at 

the hearing such as helping his mother with odd jobs and performing yard work.” 

(Tr. at 33). The ALJ uses these examples of Mr. Farmer’s activities of daily living

not to disqualify him from disability, but to show inconsistencies between Mr. 

Farmer’s subjective pain testimony at the ALJ hearing and his daily activities

reflected in the record. It is the ALJ’s responsibility to consider these 

inconsistencies and determine the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony regarding 

his symptoms and the limitations they impose. See Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-7p, 1996 WL 

374186 (1996). Thus, the ALJ justifiably determined that Mr. Farmer’s subjective 

Page 13 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 13 of 15
pain testimony was not credible when compared to the evidence in the record. See

Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002).

Finally, the question before this court is not whether Mr. Farmer has some 

evidence to support his subjective pain testimony, but whether the ALJ provided 

substantial evidence in support of his decision. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 

(11th Cir. 2005). Mr. Farmer ultimately contends that, “the ALJ failed to properly 

credit the longitudinal medical evidence as a whole.” (Doc. 12, pp. 8). However, 

the ALJ specifically addressed Mr. Farmer’s allegations of pain in his opinion, and 

he provided explicit and reasonable explanations for rejecting Mr. Farmer’s

testimony. There is no indication that the ALJ failed to properly consider Mr. 

Farmer’s subjective pain testimony, or that the ALJ’s conclusion was a “broad 

rejection which is not enough to enable [this court] to conclude that [the ALJ] 

considered [his] medical condition as a whole.” Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210. Even if 

the court were to disagree with the ALJ’s ultimate determination, that 

determination can be reversed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence. 

Because there is substantial evidence supporting the determination, this court is not 

authorized to reverse it. Accordingly, the court finds that the ALJ’s conclusion 

that Plaintiff’s condition did not cause disabling limitations and instead shows that 

he could perform a reduced range of light work is supported by substantial 

evidence.

Page 14 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 14 of 15
IV. Conclusion

Upon review of the administrative record, and considering all of Mr. 

Farmer’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 contemporaneously herewith.

DONE this 20th day of July, 2015.

_______________________________

T. MICHAEL PUTNAM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 15 of 15

Case 4:14-cv-00627-TMP Document 16 Filed 07/20/15 Page 15 of 15