Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00805/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00805-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

CHARLES NOLEN TANKERSLEY, Jr., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:13cv805-WC 

 ) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Charles Nolen Tankersley (“Plaintiff”) filed an application for disability insurance 

benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. 

His application was denied at the initial administrative level. Plaintiff then requested and 

received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Following the hearing, 

the ALJ issued a decision in which the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled from the alleged 

onset date of March 31, 2010, through the date of the decision. Plaintiff appealed to the 

Appeals Council, which rejected his request for review of the ALJ’s decision. 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). The case 

 

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 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 14
2 

is now before the court for review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), both parties have consented to the conduct of all proceedings and entry of a final 

judgment by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Pl.’s Consent to 

Jurisdiction (Doc. 13); Def.’s Consent to Jurisdiction (Doc. 12). Based on the court’s 

review of the record and the briefs of the parties, the court AFFIRMS the decision of the 

Commissioner. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), a person is entitled to 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. 

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).2

 To make this determination, the Commissioner employs a five-step, sequential 

evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2011). 

(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 [the Listing of 

Impairments]? 

(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? 

 

2

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

abnormalities that are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic 

techniques. 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 14
3 

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

 The burden of proof rests on a claimant through Step 4. See Phillips v. Barnhart, 

357 F.3d 1232, 1237-39 (11th Cir. 2004). A claimant establishes a prima facie case of 

qualifying disability once they have carried the burden of proof from Step 1 through Step 

4. At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner, who must then show there are a 

significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform. Id. 

 To perform the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s 

Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). Id. at 1238-39. The RFC is what the claimant is 

still able to do despite the claimant’s impairments and is based on all relevant medical 

and other evidence. Id. It may contain both exertional and nonexertional limitations. Id. 

at 1242-43. At the fifth step, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and 

work experience to determine if there are jobs available in the national economy the 

claimant can perform. Id. at 1239. To do this, the ALJ can either use the Medical 

Vocational Guidelines4

 (“grids”) or call a vocational expert (“VE”). Id. at 1239-40. 

 The grids allow the ALJ to consider factors such as age, confinement to sedentary 

 

3

 McDaniel, 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). 

4

 See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt. P, app. 2. 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 3 of 14
4 

or light work, inability to speak English, educational deficiencies, and lack of job 

experience. Each factor can independently limit the number of jobs realistically available 

to an individual. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240. Combinations of these factors yield a 

statutorily-required finding of “Disabled” or “Not Disabled.” Id. 

 The court’s 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); see also Crawford v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Even if the evidence 

preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings, [a reviewing court] must affirm if the 

decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.”). 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). 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 4 of 14
5 

III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

 Plaintiff was thirty-seven years old at the time of the hearing before the ALJ, and 

had completed the twelfth grade. Tr. 54. Following the administrative hearing and 

employing the five-step process, the ALJ found at Step One that Plaintiff “has not 

engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 31, 2010, the alleged onset date.” Tr. 

25. At Step Two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffers from the following severe 

impairments: “carpal tunnel syndrome status post bilateral release; right knee meniscal 

tear; left lateral epicondylitis; degenerative joint disease of the left shoulder; partial tear 

right shoulder status post repair; herniated nucleus pulposus in L5-S1; and sacroiliac 

radiculopathy[.]” Id. At Step Three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “does not have an 

impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of 

one of the listed impairments[.]” Id. Next, the ALJ articulated Plaintiff’s RFC as 

follows: 

the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform less than the 

full range of light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) except the 

claimant must have an at will sit/stand option. He can sit for two hours at 

one time and up to four hours in an eight-hour day. He can stand for one 

hour at one time and up to two hours in an eight-hour day. He can walk for 

one hour at one time and up to two hours in an eight-hour day. He can 

frequently lift up to ten pounds and occasionally lift up to 20 pounds. He 

can occasionally carry from zero up to 20 pounds. He can occasionally use 

his hands for repetitive action such as in simple grasping and for fine 

manipulation. He can frequently use his hands for repetitive action such as 

in the pulling of arm controls and reaching (including overhead). He can 

frequently use his feet for repetitive movement such as in the pushing and 

pulling of leg controls. He can occasionally climb stairs and ramps and 

never climb ladders or scaffolds. He can frequently balance, stoop, kneel, 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 5 of 14
6 

crouch, and crawl. He can never work around unprotected heights; 

occasionally work around moving machinery and drive automotive 

equipment; and frequently work around exposure to marked changes in 

temperature and humidity, and exposure to dust, fumes, and gases. The 

claimant experiences a moderate degree of pain. 

Id. at 29. After consulting the VE, the ALJ concluded at Step Four that Plaintiff “is 

unable to perform any past relevant work[.]” Id. at 40. Finally, at Step Five, the ALJ 

determined that “[c]onsidering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and 

residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national 

economy that the claimant can perform[.]” Id. at 41. Based upon the testimony of the 

VE, the ALJ identified the following as representative occupations: “counter rental 

clerk,” “machine tender,” and “ticket taker.” Id. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that 

Plaintiff “has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from 

March 31, 2010, through the date of th[e] decision.” Id. at 42. 

IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

 Plaintiff presents one issue for this court’s consideration in review of the ALJ’s 

decision. He contends that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of his treating 

physician, and that, had the ALJ given his treating physician’s opinion proper weight, 

“the ALJ would have found Plaintiff disabled based upon” the limitations indicated in the 

physician’s opinion. Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 9) at 4. 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 6 of 14
7 

V. DISCUSSION

In general, “[a]bsent ‘good cause,’ an ALJ is to give the medical opinions of 

treating physicians ‘substantial or considerable weight.’” Winschel v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 

1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997)). “Good cause exists ‘when the (1) treating physician 

opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or 

(3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own 

medical records.” Id. (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 

2004)). If the ALJ disregards a treating physician’s opinion, or affords it less than 

“substantial or considerable weight,” the ALJ must “‘clearly articulate [the] reasons’ for 

doing so.” Id. (quoting Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240-41). 

 The treating physician opinion which Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to properly 

evaluate is that of Dr. Corbin,5

 who completed a Physical Capacities Evaluation (“PCE”) 

which was drafted and provided by Plaintiff’s counsel. See Tr. 380-81. In pertinent part, 

Dr. Corbin opined that Plaintiff could sit for no more than two total hours in an eight hour 

work day, and that he could stand or walk for no more than two hours in an eight hour 

workday. Tr. 380. In addition, Dr. Corbin completed a Clinical Assessment of Pain, 

which was also drafted and submitted by plaintiff’s counsel, in which he opined that 

physical activity, “such as prolonged sitting, walking, standing, bending, stooping, 

 

5

 Plaintiff affirmed the ALJ’s description of Dr. Corbin as his “general practitioner.” Tr. 65. 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 7 of 14
8 

moving of extremities, etc.,” would cause Plaintiff “[g]realty increased pain and to such a 

degree as to cause distraction from tasks or total abandonment of tasks.” Tr. 382. 

 In addressing Dr. Corbin’s opinion, the ALJ explained as follows: 

I have considered and given little evidentiary weight to the opinion of Dr. 

Corbin, who provided a residual functional capacity assessments [sic], and 

treatment records (Exhibit 9F & 11F). Dr. Corbin is a treating physician 

whose opinion is inconsistent with the above-discussed evidence. His 

opinion is also inconsistent with his own treating records. For example, in 

2006, Dr. Corbin stated that the claimant’s left shoulder was doing well. 

Further, in December 2009, the claimants[’] DOT physical was normal and 

there were no contraindications. His opinion is also unsubstantiated by any 

clinical or laboratory findings and it is not accompanied by objective 

medical evidence. As indicated above, I give greater weight to the opinion 

of the examining neurologist [Dr. Hakim] who is an expert in examining 

these types of impairments. Therefore, the undersigned gives little weight 

to the opinion of Dr. Corbin. 

Tr. 40. Thus, the ALJ articulated three distinct bases for its rejection of Dr. Corbin’s 

opinion, including 1) it is inconsistent with other evidence in the record, 2) it is 

inconsistent with Dr. Corbin’s own treatment records, and 3) it is not based upon any 

“clinical or laboratory findings” and is not “accompanied by objective medical evidence.” 

Id. 

 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred, arguing as follows: 

The ALJ’s rationale for rejecting this opinion is questionable given that 

Plaintiff’s alleged onset date is March 31, 2010. Whether Plaintiff’s 

shoulder was “doing well” in 2006, or that Plaintiff had a normal DOT 

physical in 2009 is not material to whether Plaintiff became disabled at a 

later date, and does not provide a basis for the ALJ to reject a treating 

source opinion. 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 8 of 14
9 

Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 9) at 10. Of course, as set forth above, the ALJ relied upon more than just 

records predating Plaintiff’s alleged disability onset date in discounting Dr. Corbin’s 

opinion. In particular, the ALJ found that Dr. Corbin’s opinion was inconsistent with the 

great weight of other medical evidence in the record, especially the opinion of the 

consultative examiner, Dr. Hakim, which the ALJ found to be “consistent with records 

and reports obtained from the claimant’s treating physicians and with the evidence as a 

whole.” Tr. 39.6

 Moreover, as the ALJ noted, apart from Dr. Corbin’s opinion, “[t]he 

record does not contain any opinions from treating or examining physicians indicating 

that the claimant is disabled or even has limitations greater than those determined in this 

decision.” Tr. 39. 

 Nevertheless, Plaintiff argues that “the opinion of Dr. Corbin is fully supported by 

the evidence of record from numerous sources[.]” Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 9) at 10-11 (citations 

and internal quotations omitted). However, rather than discussing in detail these 

“numerous sources” of record evidence and explaining why he believes they validate Dr. 

 

6

 As noted by the ALJ, see Tr. 34-36, Dr. Hakim conducted an extensive consultative 

examination of Plaintiff. In addition to a physical examination, Dr. Hakim performed a Nerve 

Conduction Velocity Test and electromyography on Plaintiff’s extremities. Tr. 348. Dr. Hakim 

found that Plaintiff’s right carpal tunnel was “mild-to-moderate in nature,” left carpal tunnel was 

“moderate in nature,” and “found no evidence of lumbar radiculopathy or peripheral 

neuropathy[.]” Id. He surmised that Plaintiff’s back pain “appeared musculoskeletal in nature” 

because he “could not document a radiculopathy per the EMG test or neurologic examination.” 

Id. Likewise, Dr. Hakim “could not document evidences of cervical radiculopathy per the EMG 

test performed today.” Id. Based upon his findings, Dr. Hakim completed a PCE which, in 

pertinent part, indicates that Plaintiff can frequently lift up to 10 pounds, occasionally lift up to 

twenty pounds, occasionally carry up to twenty pounds, can sit for up to four hours in an eight 

hour day, and can stand and walk for up to two hours each in an eight hour work day. Tr. 351-

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 9 of 14
10 

Corbin’s opinion, Plaintiff cites only two pieces of record evidence and those pieces are 

not as compelling as he portrays them to be. The first is a letter dated April 16, 2010, 

from Plaintiff’s chiropractor, in which the chiropractor states that Plaintiff “has a history 

of wrist problems . . . as well as bilateral shoulder problems” and “chronic neck and 

lower back pain.” Tr. 328. The chiropractor further states that Plaintiff “has difficulties 

performing work functions particularly related to lifting or moving heavy objects or with 

repetitive use of the hands, wrists, or shoulders.” Id. The ALJ included the 

chiropractor’s letter in its discussion of the evidence. See Tr. 34. Notably, there do not 

appear to be any other records or treatment notes from the chiropractor in the transcript of 

evidence, despite the letter’s description of a several-year patient relationship with 

Plaintiff concerning “multiple health problems related to the spine, shoulders, wrists, 

lower back, and neck.” Tr. 328. Thus, the court is unable to assess whether the 

chiropractor’s statements are reliably supported by his own treatment records. 

Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff offers the statement of his chiropractor as medical 

evidence of disability or as corroboration of Dr. Corbin’s medical opinion, “the ALJ has 

no duty to give significant or controlling weight to a chiropractor’s views because, for 

SSA purposes, a chiropractor is not a ‘medical source’ who can offer medical opinions.” 

Miles v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 469 F. App’x 743, 745 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished 

 

52. 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 10 of 14
11 

decision). Accordingly, the chiropractor’s statement does not demonstrate that the ALJ 

lacked good cause in discounting Dr. Corbin’s opinion. 

 The other piece of record evidence Plaintiff proffers as supporting Dr. Corbin’s 

opinion is Dr. Corbin’s own treatment note from June 17, 2011, in which Dr. Corbin 

notes Plaintiff’s “subjective” complaint that he “has significant problems w/ chronic 

neuropathic pain and orthopedic issues to the point of disability now having increased 

problems w/ pain and numbness bilaterally down both arms with numbness and weakness 

in both hands.” Tr. 360. The ALJ noted this record in its review of the evidence. See Tr. 

36. Plaintiff does not explain how his own subjective complaint to Dr. Corbin could 

constitute “full[] support[]” for Dr. Corbin’s subsequent opinion which was discounted 

by the ALJ. It is evident that Plaintiff’s subjective complaint to Dr. Corbin cannot suffice 

as the sort of “clinical or laboratory findings” or “objective medical evidence” the lack of 

which the ALJ specifically cited in discounting Dr. Corbin’s opinion. Accordingly, the 

content of Dr. Corbin’s treatment note describing Plaintiff’s subjective complaints does 

not demonstrate that the ALJ lacked “good cause” in discounting Dr. Corbin’s opinion. 

 Plaintiff next asserts that, even if the ALJ found Dr. Corbin’s opinion inconsistent 

with his treatment records or other medical evidence, it was “egregious error” for the ALJ 

to discount Dr. Corbin’s opinion “without first recontacting Dr. Corbin” in order to 

obtain clarification from Dr. Corbin on the basis of his opinion because, purportedly, Dr. 

Corbin was providing an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. Pl.’s Br. 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 11 of 14
12 

(Doc. 9) at 11. However, the ALJ’s failure to recontact a treating source does not warrant 

remand unless “‘the record reveals evidentiary gaps which result in unfairness or clear 

prejudice.’ The likelihood of unfair prejudice may arise if there is an evidentiary gap that 

‘the claimant contends supports [his] allegations of disability.’” Couch v. Astrue, 267 F. 

App’x 853, 855 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Brown v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 931, 935 (11th Cir. 

1995)). It appears that the ALJ was in possession of all of Dr. Corbin’s records, and 

Plaintiff does not contend that there are additional, undisclosed records from Dr. Corbin 

which would have shed light on the basis for his opinion. Nor is there any requirement 

that the ALJ recontact a treating source merely to procure an explanation for a treating 

source’s opinion which is not borne out by the source’s treatment records or other 

medical evidence in the record. Finally, substantial evidence—namely plaintiff’s medical 

records from other treating sources and, particularly, the opinion of the neurologic 

specialist Dr. Hakim—supports the ALJ’s decision. As such, the ALJ did not have a duty 

to recontact Dr. Corbin. 

 Plaintiff’s contention that Dr. Corbin was providing an opinion on an issue 

reserved for the Commissioner, and therefore was due to be recontacted pursuant to SSR 

96-5p, is unsupported by the evidence. Presumably, Plaintiff is asserting that Dr. 

Corbin’s PCE constitutes an opinion on either Plaintiff’s RFC or whether he is disabled, 

both of which are determinations reserved to the Commissioner. However, Dr. Corbin’s 

PCE only describes the limitations which he attributes to Plaintiff. It does not indicate 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 12 of 14
13 

Plaintiff’s RFC and makes no conclusions about whether he is disabled. It is Plaintiff, 

not Dr. Corbin, who interprets Dr. Corbin’s opinions about Plaintiff’s limitations and 

concludes that it supports his claim of disability. Thus, the court cannot conclude that 

any duty to recontact pursuant to SSR 96-5p was indeed implicated. In any event, even if 

Dr. Corbin’s opinion could be construed as an opinion on matters reserved to the 

Commissioner, as discussed above, the ALJ’s decision not to recontact the treating source 

warrants remand only if “the record reveals evidentiary gaps which result in unfairness or 

clear prejudice.” Brown, 44 F.3d at 935. As the court has already concluded that no such 

evidentiary gaps are indicated in the record, or even alleged by Plaintiff, the court cannot 

conclude that the ALJ erred in failing to recontact Dr. Corbin despite Dr. Corbin’s 

purported opining on matters reserved to the Commissioner. 

 In sum, the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and 

Plaintiff has failed to show that the ALJ lacked “good cause” in discounting the opinion 

of Dr. Corbin. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

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

for the reasons given above, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. A 

separate judgment will issue. 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 13 of 14
14 

Done this 9th day of October, 2014. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:13-cv-00805-WC Document 14 Filed 10/09/14 Page 14 of 14