Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03897/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03897-0/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

JEROME LOVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social

Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

2:12-cv-3897-AKK

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Jerome Love (“Love”) brings this action pursuant to Section 205(g)

of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the

final adverse decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

(“SSA”). This court finds that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision -

which has become the decision of the Commissioner - is supported by substantial

evidence. Therefore, for the reasons elaborated herein, the court will affirm the

decision denying benefits.

I. Procedural History

Love, whose past relevant experience includes work as a painter and van

driver, filed an application for Title XVI Supplemental Security Income on

FILED

 2014 Jul-31 PM 12:54

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 12
September 10, 2009, alleging an amended disability onset date of September 10,

2009, due to diabetes and vision problems. (R. 21, 140). After the SSA denied

Love’s claim, he requested a hearing before an ALJ. (R. 69-70). The ALJ

subsequently denied Love’s claim, (R. 18-28), which became the final decision of

the Commissioner when the Appeals Council refused to grant review. (R. 1-6). 

Love then filed this action for judicial review pursuant to § 205(g) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 1.

II. Standard of Review

 The only issues before this court are whether the record contains substantial

evidence to sustain the ALJ’s decision, See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Walden v.

Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982), and whether the ALJ applied the

correct legal standards, see Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988);

Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

mandates that the Commissioner’s “factual findings are conclusive if supported by

‘substantial evidence.’” Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). 

The district court may not reconsider the facts, reevaluate the evidence, or

substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner; instead, it must review the

final decision as a whole and determine if the decision is “reasonable and

supported by substantial evidence.” See id. (citing Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703

2

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 2 of 12
F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)). Substantial evidence falls somewhere between

a scintilla and a preponderance of evidence; “[i]t is such relevant evidence as a

reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Martin, 849

F.2d at 1529 (quoting Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239) (other citations omitted). If

supported by substantial evidence, the court must affirm the Commissioner’s

factual findings even if the preponderance of the evidence is against the

Commissioner’s findings. See Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529. While the court

acknowledges that judicial review of the ALJ’s findings is limited in scope, it

notes that the review “does not yield automatic affirmance.” Lamb, 847 F.2d at

701.

III. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show “the inability to

engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable

physical or mental impairments 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 twelve

months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 416(i). A physical or mental

impairment is “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or

psychological abnormalities which are demonstrated by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3).

3

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 3 of 12
Determination of disability under the Act requires a five step analysis. 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). Specifically, the Commissioner must determine in

sequence:

(1) whether the claimant is currently unemployed;

(2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment;

(3) whether the impairment meets or equals one listed by the Secretary;

(4) whether the claimant is unable to perform his or her past work; and

(5) whether the claimant is unable to perform any work in the national

economy.

McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986). “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.’” Id. at 1030 (citing 20

C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(f)). “Once a finding is made that a claimant cannot return to

prior work the burden shifts to the Secretary to show other work the claimant can

do.” Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

Lastly, where, as here, a plaintiff alleges disability because of pain, he must

meet additional criteria. In this circuit, “a three part ‘pain standard’ [is applied]

when a claimant seeks to establish disability through his or her own testimony of

4

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 4 of 12
pain or other subjective symptoms.” Holt v. Barnhart, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th

Cir. 1991). Specifically,

The pain standard requires (1) evidence of an underlying medical

condition and 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.1

Id. However, medical evidence of pain itself, or of its intensity, is not required:

While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective

medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to

cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain

itself. Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively

identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain

alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his

condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he

alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to

produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself. See 20 CFR §§

404.1529 and 416.929; Hale [v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th

Cir. 1987)].

Elam v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 921 F.2d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 1991) (parenthetical

information omitted) (emphasis added). Moreover, “[a] claimant’s subjective

testimony supported by medical evidence that satisfies the pain standard is itself

sufficient to support a finding of disability.” Holt, 921 F.2d at 1223. Therefore, if

a claimant testifies to disabling pain and satisfies the three part pain standard, the

 This standard is referred to as the Hand standard, named after Hand v. Heckler,

1

761 F.2d 1545, 1548 (11th Cir. 1985).

5

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 5 of 12
ALJ must find a disability unless the ALJ properly discredits the claimant’s

testimony.

Furthermore, when the ALJ fails to credit a claimant’s pain testimony, the

ALJ must articulate reasons for that decision:

It is established in this circuit that if the [ALJ] fails to articulate

reasons for refusing to credit a claimant’s subjective pain testimony,

then the [ALJ], as a matter of law, has accepted that testimony as true. 

Implicit in this rule is the requirement that such articulation of

reasons by the [ALJ] be supported by substantial evidence.

Hale, 831 F.2d at 1012. Therefore, if the ALJ either fails to articulate reasons for

refusing to credit the plaintiff’s pain testimony, or if the ALJ’s reasons are not

supported by substantial evidence, the court must accept as true the pain testimony

of the plaintiff and render a finding of disability. Id.

IV. The ALJ’s Decision

In performing the five step analysis, the ALJ found that Love had not

engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 10, 2009, and, therefore,

met Step One. (R. 23). Next, the ALJ found that Love satisfied Step Two because

he suffered from the severe impairments of “diabetes mellitus associated with

lower extremity claudication.” Id. The ALJ then proceeded to the next step and

found that Love failed to satisfy Step Three because he “does not have an

impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of

6

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 6 of 12
the listed impairments.” (R. 24). Although the ALJ answered Step Three in the

negative, consistent with the law, see McDaniel, 800 F.2d at 1030, the ALJ

proceeded to Step Four where he determined that Love has the residual functional

capacity (RFC) to perform

a range of medium work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(c), with the

ability to lift/carry up to fifty pounds occasionally and twenty-five

pounds frequently, to stand/walk for about a total of six hours each

workday, and to sit for about six hours each workday. However, the

claimant is unable to climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and should

have no exposure to temperature extremes or hazards, such as

unprotected heights or hazardous, moving machinery. Additionally,

he should perform no more than occasional stooping, kneeling,

crouching, crawling, or climbing stairs/ramps. 

Id. In light of his RFC, the ALJ held that Love “is unable to perform any past

relevant work.” (R. 26). Lastly, in Step Five, the ALJ considered Love’s age,

education, work experience, and RFC and determined “there are jobs that exist in

2

significant numbers in the national economy [Love] can perform.” Id. Therefore,

the ALJ found that Love “has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social

Security Act, since September 10, 2009, the date the applications was filed.” (R.

27).

 As of the date of the ALJ’s decision, Love was 59 years old, had a high school

2

education, and had past relevant medium work as a painter and van driver. (R. 26). 

7

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 7 of 12
V. Analysis

The court now turns to Love’s contentions that (1) the ALJ’s RFC

assessment was incompatible with the jobs he identified in Step Five; and (2) the

ALJ improperly relied on Love’s activities to find he could perform medium

work. See doc. 9 at 6-7. The court addresses each contention in turn.

3

A. The ALJ’s RFC assessment is compatible with the jobs identified by

the ALJ.

Love contends that the restrictions of only occasional stooping, kneeling,

crouching, crawling, and climbing stairs/ramps in the ALJ’s RFC assessment are

inconsistent with the ability to perform the medium jobs identified by the ALJ.4

Doc. 9 at 6. Unfortunately, Love’s contention misses the mark because the ALJ

properly relied on testimony from a vocational expert (VE) to find Love could

perform jobs that exist in the national economy for an individual with Love’s

RFC, (R. 52), and, in this circuit, “[t]he preferred method of demonstrating job

availability when the grids are not controlling is through expert vocational

 Love’s contention regarding transferability of skills rests on the assumption that 3

he is limited to light work. Doc. 9 at 8. Because Love has not shown the ALJ erred in

finding he could do a reduced range of medium work, this contention is irrelevant.

 The ALJ noted that the vocational expert testified that, with Love’s RFC for a 4

reduced range of medium work, Love could perform the requirements of representative

occupations such as equipment cleaner (DOT 381.687-022), cashier (DOT 211.467-034),

and packer (DOT 920.587-018). (R. 27, 52).

8

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 8 of 12
testimony.” Francis v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 1562, 1566 (11th Cir. 1985). The record

here shows that the VE testified that an individual with Love’s RFC could perform

the job of cashier, which requires no climbing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, or

crawling. see DICOT 211.467-034, 1991 WL 671854 (G.P.O.), and that there are

2,900 such jobs in the state, and 130,000 in the nation. (R. 52). This testimony

provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Love could

perform other work and, accordingly, the ALJ committed no reversible error.

B. The ALJ properly considered Love’s daily activities.

Finally, Love contends that the ALJ erred in considering his testimony that

he babysits his one year-old grandchild because “[t]his activity does not constitute

work . . . and does not readily translate to medium work activity.” Doc. 9 at 7. 

However, Love is misconstruing the ALJ’s analysis. The ALJ simply considered

the babysitting, along with Love’s other daily activities, in assessing how Love’s

alleged symptoms affected his RFC, and never found that Love’s babysitting

constituted work, or that it was the equivalent of medium work:

The claimant has described daily activities that are not limited to the

extent one would expect of a disabled individual. For example, at

hearing the claimant testified he babysits his one year-old grandchild,

which can be quite physically demanding, for up to eight or nine

hours each weekday. He also performs household chores, such as

cleaning his house, without significant difficulty.

9

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 9 of 12
(R. 25); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(3)(i) (claimant’s daily activities will be

considered in assessing symptoms such as pain). Moreover, in addition to Love’s

daily activities, the ALJ also considered inconsistencies in Love’s statements

about his symptoms:

The claimant has also given inconsistent statements in connection

with his disability claim. As noted above, in April of 2010, the

claimant told medical providers he walks about four hours each day

for exercise. (Exhibit B6F 33.) However, at hearing, the claimant

5

testified he was only able to stand/walk for about ten minutes at one

time, and there is nothing in the record to suggest the claimant’s

conditions have significantly deteriorated since April of 2010. 

(Hearing Testimony.) While such inconsistencies may not be the

result of a conscious decision to mislead, they do suggest information

provided by the claimant may not be entirely reliable.

(R. 26). The ALJ committed no error because conflicts between a claimant’s

statements and other evidence can be considered in assessing symptoms such as

pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(4).

Ultimately, based on this record, Love has failed to show that the ALJ erred

in finding Love’s testimony was not credible. In accordance with the pain

standard in this circuit, see Section III, supra, the ALJ articulated specific reasons

that are supported by substantial evidence for discounting Love’s testimony of

disabling symptoms. The ALJ also properly considered Love’s testimony about

 The treatment note provides: “Exercise: States he does a lot of walking–about

5

4 hours [a] day.” (R. 470).

10

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 10 of 12
his daily activities in assessing his credibility and did not rely excessively on

Love’s testimony that he babysat his grandchild in reaching his determination. 

Significantly, even though the ALJ did not credit Love’s testimony of disabling

symptoms, he recognized that Love had some limitations, and explained that he

accommodated Love’s claudication by including the additional postural and

6

environmental limitations. (R. 26). The court finds that substantial evidence

supports the ALJ’s determination that these restrictions account for Love’s

symptoms. Accordingly, because this court does not reweigh the evidence, there

is no reversible error in the ALJ’s credibility finding.

VI. Conclusion

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

that Love is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence, and that the ALJ

applied proper legal standards in reaching this determination. Therefore, the

Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED. A separate order in accordance

with the memorandum of decision will be entered.

 Claudication refers to pain or cramping in the lower leg due to inadequate blood

6

flow to the muscles. The most common cause is peripheral artery disease caused by a

hardening of the arteries from accumulation of cholesterol plaque. 

http://www.medicinenet.com/claudication/article.htm

11

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 11 of 12
Done the 31st day of July, 2014.

________________________________

 ABDUL K. KALLON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

12

Case 2:12-cv-03897-AKK Document 12 Filed 07/31/14 Page 12 of 12