Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00427/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00427-0/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

NORTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN CRAIG MCQUEEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV427-SRW

) (WO)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Plaintiff Steven Craig McQueen brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

seeking judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security

(“Commissioner”) denying his application for disability insurance benefits under the Social

Security Act. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the Magistrate Judge,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docs. ## 9, 10). Upon review of the record and briefs

submitted by the parties, the court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner is due

to be reversed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Title II application on December 17, 2007, alleging disability since

June 20, 2005, due to rheumatoid arthritis, sleep apnea, back strain, hypertension, and a

previous right wrist fusion. He reported that he had worked for the U.S. Navy as a cargo

handler and as a recruiter, and that the Navy had retired him on disability due to his health.

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 11
(Exhibits 1D, 3E, 7E). After his application was denied at the initial administrative level,

plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. (Exhibits 1A, 1B, 2B, 3B). 

An ALJ conducted a hearing on December 17, 2008 and issued a decision thereafter. (R. 10-

49). The ALJ concluded that plaintiff has “severe” impairments of “status post arthrodesis

(fusion) of the right wrist, history of gouty arthritis of the right wrist, headaches, mild

obesity, and obstructive sleep apnea, corrected with CPAP” and “non-severe” impairments 

of “hypertension, question of occasional gout of the left toe, and history of eczema.” (R. 15). 

He concluded that plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that

meets or medically equals one of the listings. (R. 18). He determined that plaintiff retains

the residual functional capacity for the full range of light work, with additional limitations,

and that – while he cannot perform his past relevant work – he retains the residual functional

capacity to perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. 

(R. 18-22). He concluded, therefore, that plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in

the Social Security Act from his alleged onset date through the date of the ALJ’s decision. 

(R. 22). The Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision 

(R. 1-9), and plaintiff filed the present action thereafter (Doc. # 1).

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is narrowly circumscribed. The

court does not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. 

Rather, the court examines the administrative decision and scrutinizes the record as a whole

2

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 2 of 11
to determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s factual findings. Davis v.

Shalala, 985 F.2d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 1993); Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145

(11th Cir. 1991). Substantial evidence consists of such “relevant evidence as a reasonable

person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Cornelius, 936 F.2d at 1145. 

Factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence must be upheld by the court. The

ALJ’s legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo because no presumption of validity

attaches to the ALJ’s determination of the proper legal standards to be applied. Davis, 985

F.2d at 531. If the court finds an error in the ALJ’s application of the law, or if the ALJ fails

to provide the court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis

has been conducted, the ALJ’s decision must be reversed. Cornelius, 936 F.2d at 1145-46.

DISCUSSION

Dr. Jayesh Patel has been plaintiff’s primary care physician at the VA since 

September 11, 2006. (See Exhibits 5F, 6F, 10F; R. 290 (“33 yo bm here today for his 1 st

visit with me.”)). After examining plaintiff on September 4, 2008, and at plaintiff’s request

(R. 410-16), Dr. Patel provided plaintiff with a “certificate” in which he states: 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ABOVE NAMED PERSON IS SUFFERING

FROM FOLLOWING PROBLEMS.

1) htn 2) lbp 3) s/p steel plate in righ[t] wrist placed on 2/04 4) sleep apnea,

using c pap. 5) chronic dermatitis.

DUE TO ABOVE MEDICAL CONDITIONS, HE IS NOT ABLE TO

ENGAGE IN ANY GAINFUL ACTIVITI[E]S.

FOR ANY QUESTION REGARDING HIM, FEEL FREE TO CALL US.

3

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 3 of 11
(R. 396, 410-11). On October 30, 2008, the VA regional office issued a decision on 1

plaintiff’s appeal from an earlier VA disability benefit determination. (Exhibit 12E). The 2

VA determined that plaintiff has an “overall or combined rating [of] 80%” but that he is

entitled to VA disability compensation at the “100% rate effective June 21, 2005” because

The record includes an earlier determination by VA vocational rehabilitation counselor 1

Melissa Brown that it was not reasonably feasible for plaintiff to achieve the vocational goal of

employment. Brown decided, therefore, not to place plaintiff on a rehabilitation plan. She so advised

the VA adjudication division by letter dated July 29, 2008, noting plaintiff’s 80% disability rating

and, also, that he had not worked since June 2005 and had applied for SSDI benefits. She concluded:

Veteran has been found not to be currently reasonably feasible due to the

following reason(s): physical condition(s) are such that he cannot function at an

excepted level to retain employment, will be at an extreme disadvantage when

applying for jobs competing against non-disabled applicants. VRC has no doubt

that veteran can expect to encounter negative attitudes among prospective employers

for jobs due to above listed condition(s). 

Veteran has been determined to have impairment to employability (serious

employmenthandicap). After reviewing veteran[’]s employment history, education

and training, using the Guide for Occupational Exploration and/or the Selected

Characteristics of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), it has been

determined that veteran has not been able to overcome this impairment by education

or employment experience.

(Exhibit 10E, R. 144-45)(emphases in original). The vocational expert at the hearing testified that

he found this evaluation to be “amazing” as “there were no testing results in terms of how well he

would be able to handle and manipulate, finger items.” (R. 48). However, contrary to the VE’s

testimony, the record does include the results of such testing by an occupational therapist in June

2008. (R. 423-26). Nevertheless, the ALJ ultimately concluded that plaintiff is precluded from

using his right upper extremity for handling and fingering (R. 18) and did not rely on the VE’s

erroneous testimony regarding the VA’s vocational rehabilitation assessment. (R. 21-22).

Although the December 2006 examination results are not in the record, it appears that 2

plaintiff was then examined by Dr. Beverly Boyd in connection with seeking an increase in his VA

disability rating (R. 306; see also R. 296); on January 30, 2008, Dr. Barbara Gales conducted a

“compensation and pension examination” in connection with review of plaintiff’s VA claim. 

(R. 298-306).

4

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 4 of 11
he is “unable to work due to [his] service connected disability/disabilities.” (R. 151).

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by “failing to properly consider and weigh the

evidence relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs determination that the claimant is

disabled and unable to work and the medical opinions of a treating physician.” (Doc. # 14,

p. 6). Plaintiff points out that, even though it is not binding on the Commissioner, a VA

finding of disability is entitled to “great weight.” He argues that the ALJ “made no reference

at all to the V.A.’s granting plaintiff entitlement to individual unemployability effective June

21, 2005[,]” that he “provided no specific discussion or explanation of his consideration of

the V.A. evidence, except as it applied to the V.A.’s determination of 50% disabilityfor sleep

apnea[,]” and that the ALJ’s failure to indicate the weight he assigned to the VA disability

determination constitutes legal error. (Id., pp. 6-7). He further maintains that the ALJ erred

by failing to discuss or make any findings regarding the opinion of Dr. Patel that plaintiff is

not able to engage in any substantial gainful activities. (Id., p. 7). 

In his decision, the ALJ does not mention either Dr. Patel or his opinion that plaintiff

is not able, due to his diagnosed impairments, to engage in gainful activities. (See R. 13-22). 

His discussion of the VA disability benefit determination is as follows:

I have noted the Veteran’s Administration findings at Exhibit 12E, their

decision to grant the claimant 50% disability due to obstructive sleep apnea,

but I do not agree with the overall decision, as it appears that the claimant’s

sleep apnea is successfully treated with a CPAP machine, according to the

testimony provided by Dr. Anderson at the hearing, which would not

significantly interfere with daytime work activities. 

(R. 20). Citing this discussion, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ did discuss the VA

5

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 5 of 11
disability decision but discounted it because “he noted that the VA decision was based

largely upon the VA’s finding that Plaintiff had 50% disability due to sleep apnea” and that

plaintiff’s “sleep apnea is successfully treated with a CPAP machine[.]” (Doc. # 15,

p. 7)(citing R. 20, 144). She further maintains that “Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ did

not consider Dr. Patel’s opinion has no merit.” (Id., pp. 7-8). She “notes that the VA

decision was based primarily on Dr. Patel’s assessment” and, accordingly, that “any

discussion of that [VA] decision was, in effect, a discussion of Dr. Patel’s opinion.” (Id.,

p. 6)(citing R. 144, 165). The Commissioner argues that, even if the court concludes to the

contrary, there was no error. She observes that Dr. Patel’s opinion consists of two parts – his

diagnoses and his opinion on plaintiff’s ability to work – and argues that the ALJ adopted the

former (because he found the plaintiff to have all of the impairments listed by Dr. Patel) and

the latter is “not a medical opinion, but an administrative finding on an issue reserved to the

Commissioner” that is not entitled to special deference. (Id., p. 8). She contends that since

this is so, the ALJ was not required to give good reasons for the weight he assigned to Dr.

Patel’s non-medical opinion. She concludes:

In any case, even if Dr. Patel’s opinion was a medical opinion and the ALJ

erred in not giving reasons for discounting the opinion, Plaintiff has not shown

the error was not harmless. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 1705-06

(2009)(the burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the

party attacking the agency’s determination). In this case, the opinion was

entitled to little weight, and had the ALJ specifically considered it, he would

have given it little weight. The ALJ would have found it was conclusory. A

treating physician’s opinion may be discounted when it is not accompanied by

objective medical evidence or is conclusory. See Edwards v. Sullivan, 937

F.2d 580, 583 (11 Cir. 1991). Moreover, the opinion was inconsistent with th

Dr. Patel’s treatment notes that showed that Plaintiff’s conditions were stable,

6

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 6 of 11
although they did support a finding, as the ALJ made, that Plaintiff had severe

limitations of his right hand (Tr. 18). An ALJ may discount the opinion of a

treating physician where the opinion is contradicted by the objective medical

evidence.

(Doc. # 15, pp. 8-9).

As noted above, the ALJ did not mention Dr. Patel or discuss his opinion that plaintiff

is unable to engage in any gainful activities. While the ALJ refers to “the Veteran’s

Administration findings at Exhibit 12E, he describes it as “their decision to grant the claimant

50% disability due to obstructive sleep apnea[.]” (R. 20). However, Exhibit 12E contains

no reference to the specific ratings assigned to plaintiff’s discrete impairments. It includes

a letter from A. L. Hill, the Veterans Service Center Manager, advising plaintiff of and

transmitting the favorable decision. Hill’s letter sets forth the amount of VA disability

compensation awarded and the payment dates; it notes that plaintiff has “an overall or

combined rating” of “80%” but that he is granted entitlement at the 100% rate because he is

“unable to work due to [his] service connected disability/disabilities.” (Exhibit 12E at p. 4,

R. 151). Hill attaches the decision of the VA “decision review officer,” along with a number

of forms and other information. (Id., at p. 7, R. 154). The decision review officer lists some

of plaintiff’s service connected impairments but does not mention the disability percentage

rating associated with these impairments. (Id., at p. 19, R. 166)(“He is service connected for

obstructive sleep apnea, arthrodesis right wrist, low back strain, and hypertension.”). It seems

likely that, rather than discounting only the VA’s assignment of a 50% disability rating as

7

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 7 of 11
a result of plaintiff’s sleep apnea, the ALJ – although he does not say so – meant instead to 3

discount the VA’s finding that plaintiff is entitled to compensation at the 100% rate on the

basis of individual unemployability and/or its conclusion that his “overall or combined rating

is 80%” (R. 151), on the basis of evidence elsewhere in the record indicating plaintiff’s 50%

sleep apnea rating.4

The court need not decide whether the ALJ’s consideration of the VA disability rating

is adequate, however, because – even assuming that it is – he committed reversible error by

failing to consider Dr. Patel’s opinion. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ’s discussion

of the VA determination, set forth in its entirety above, “was, in effect, a discussion of Dr.

Patel’s opinion,” (see Doc. # 15, p. 6) simply because the VA decision review officer cites

Dr. Patel’s September 4, 2008, statement as the basis for his conclusion that plaintiff is

entitled to compensation on the basis of “individual unemployability” (see Exhibit 12E at pp.

18-19, R. 165-66). The court cannot agree. In his written decision, the ALJ touches on the

VA’s disability determination only briefly (see R. 20); there is nothing in that decision

As the Commissioner notes, the 50% disability rating for sleep apnea requiring the use of 3

a CPAP machine is prescribed by the schedule of ratings set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.97 (diagnostic

code 6847). 

In the VA decision letter, Hill advised plaintiff that the VA does “not add the individual 4

percentages of each condition to determine [the] combined rating” but, instead, it “use[s] a combined

rating table that considers the effect from the most serious to the least serious conditions.” (R. 151). 

Plaintiff’s VA records reflect a 50% disability rating due to sleep apnea, 40% due to loss of wrist

motion, 10% for lumbar or cervical strain, 10% for eczema, and 0% each for hypertension and

limitation of motion of a finger. (See R. 223, 226, 230 (notations of individual percentages in

medical record); R. 284 (VAsocial worker’s September 2006 note that “Veteran is service connected

80%”); see also R. 144 (VRC counselor’s July 2008 letter)). 

8

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 8 of 11
suggesting that the ALJ was aware that the VA decision review officer had relied on Dr.

Patel’s opinion, or even that the ALJ knew of Dr. Patel’s September 4, 2008 opinion at all.5

The Commissioner argues that the part of Dr. Patel’s statement expressing his opinion

regarding plaintiff’s ability to engage in gainful activities relates to an issue reserved to the

Commissioner and, therefore, that it is not entitled to any special deference, and the ALJ was

not required to state his reasons for the weight he accorded it. While this may be so, the ALJ

wasrequired to consider Dr. Patel’s opinion; his opinion does not reflect that he did so. See

Lawton v. Commissioner of Social Security, 431 Fed. Appx. 830, 834-35 (11 Cir. th

2011)(“As for the Commissioner’s argument that Dr. Earls’s opinion that Lawton could

never return to work was an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner and, thus, was

not entitled to any special weight, the ALJ never said that he was rejecting Dr. Earls’s

opinion because it was not a medical opinion. Moreover, while an ALJ is not permitted to

give a treating physician’s opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner controlling

weight, he is required to consider it. Although the ALJ is not required to specifically refer

to every piece of evidence in the record, he is required to explain the weight he afforded to

‘obviously probative exhibits.’”)(citations omitted); cf. Kelly v. Commissioner of Social

Security, 401 Fed. Appx. 403, 407-08 (11 Cir. 2010)(noting that “[a] doctor’s opinion on th

The ALJ relies on a portion of the primary care nurse’s screen note for plaintiff’s visit to 5

Dr. Patel on September 4, 2008 but, as noted above, does not mention the opinion Dr. Patel rendered

on that date that plaintiff is unable to engage in gainful activities. (See R. 20 (“On September 4,

2008, the claimant reported that he walks for exercise. The claimant has a body mass index (BMI)

of 27[.]”); see also R. 413-15 (LPN Regina Williams’ screening note for September 4, 2008);

R. 410-412 (Dr. Patel’s note for plaintiff’s office visit on September 4, 2008 and Dr. Patel’s

“certificate” signed the same day). 

9

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 9 of 11
a dispositive issue reserved for the Commissioner, such as whether the claimant is ‘disabled’

or ‘unable to work,’ is not considered a medical opinion and is not given any special

significance, even if offered by a treating source, but will be taken into consideration” and

“[g]iven that [the treating physician’s]lettermerelylisted Kelly’s impairments and stated that

she was unable to return to work, it arguably offered only a non-medical opinion on a matter

reserved for the ALJ” but concluding that – even if it was a medical opinion – the reasons

stated by the ALJ for giving little weight to the treating physician’s opinion constituted good

cause for giving it less weight)(emphases added).

The Commissioner next invites the court to conclude that the ALJ’s failure to consider

Dr. Patel’s opinion is harmless, because “had the ALJ specifically considered it, he would

have given it little weight. The ALJ would have found it was conclusory.” (Doc. # 15, p. 8). 

The Commissioner further argues that an ALJ may discount a physician’s opinion where it

is contradicted by the objective medical evidence, and explains how Dr. Patel’s opinion is

inconsistent with his treatment notes. (Id., p. 9). The Eleventh Circuit, however, does not

countenance the approach the Commissioner suggests where, as here, the ALJ’s decision

does not indicate that he considered the treating physician’s opinion at all, even where that

opinion was on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. See Lawton, 431 Fed. Appx. at 834

(“[W]hen the ALJ fails to state with at least some measure of clarity the grounds for his

decision, we will decline to affirm simply because some rationale might have supported the

ALJ’s conclusion.”)(citing Owens v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir.1984)); id. at

834-35 (ALJ was required to consider a treating physician’s opinion that the claimant was

10

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 10 of 11
unable to return to work and to explain the weight he gave it). Where an ALJ fails to

6

provide the court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis has

been conducted, the ALJ’s decision must be reversed. Cornelius, 936 F.2d at 1145-46. 

7

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the decision ofthe Commissioner is due to be REVERSED. 

A separate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this 25th day of July, 2013.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The court does not here suggest that a “harmless error” analysis is never appropriate. For 6

instance, the ALJ’s RFC finding in the present case is internally inconsistent; it allows occasional

use of plaintiff’s right hand for “fine manipulation” while also precluding entirelythe use of his right

upper extremity for “fingering.” (R. 18). If the court were to reach the issue of whether the

Commissioner’s step five finding is supported by substantial evidence, it would likely find the

inconsistency to be harmless, as the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational expert included

the more restrictive limitation. (R. 45).

 On remand, the Commissioner may well determine – at either the Appeals Council level 7

or on furtherremand to the ALJ – that, for the reasons she argues here, Dr. Patel’s opinion is entitled

to little or no weight. However, the Eleventh Circuit requires that the Commissioner consider it; the

weight that the opinion is due is not for this court to decide. In reversing the Commissioner’s

decision, the court makes no direction regarding the Commissioner’s ultimate disposition of

plaintiff’s claim. 

11

Case 2:11-cv-00427-SRW Document 17 Filed 07/25/13 Page 11 of 11