Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00467/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00467-0/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHARON A. PICKETT, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 07-0467-BH-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security denying her claims for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income. This action is before the Magistrate Judge for

entry of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Upon consideration of the administrative record, plaintiff's proposed report and

recommendation, the Commissioner's proposed report and recommendation,

and the parties' arguments at the January 23, 2008 hearing before the Magistrate

Judge, it is determined that the decision to deny benefits should be affirmed.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made the following findings:

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 13
2

3. The claimant has an impairment or a combination of

impairments considered “severe” based on the requirements in

the Regulations 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b).

4. These medically determinable impairments do not meet

or medically equal one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1,

Subpart P, Regulation No. 4.

5. The undersigned finds the claimant’s allegations regarding

his (sic) limitations are not totally credible for the reasons set

forth in the body of the decision.

6. The undersigned has carefully considered all of the

medical opinions in the record regarding the severity of the

claimant’s impairments (20 CFR §§ 404.1527 and 416.927).

7. The claimant has the following residual functional

capacity: sedentary work activity which involves lifting and/or

carrying no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally

lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small

tools.

8. The claimant is unable to perform any of her past relevant

work as a hotel soup cook (20 CFR §§ 404.1565 and 416.965).

9. At the time of the claimant’s alleged onset date, the

claimant was a “younger individual between the ages of 45 and

49" (20 CFR §§ 404.1563 and 416.963).

10. The claimant has a high school education (20 CFR §§

404.1564 and 416.964).

11. The claimant has no transferable skills from any past

relevant work and/or transferability of skills is not an issue in this

case (20 CFR §§ 404.1568 and 416.968).

12. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to

perform the full range of sedentary work (20 CFR §§ 404.1567

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 13
3

and 416.967).

13. Based on an exertional capacity for sedentary work, and

the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, a finding of

“not disabled” is directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.21.

14. The claimant was not under a “disability” as defined in the

Social Security Act, at any time through the date of the decision

(20 CFR §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f)).

 

(Tr. 22-23) The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ's decision (Tr. 4-6) and

thus, the hearing decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security.

DISCUSSION

In all Social Security cases, the claimant bears the burden of proving that

she is unable to perform her previous work. Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001

(11th Cir. 1986). In evaluating whether the claimant has met this burden, the

examiner must consider the following four factors: (1) objective medical facts

and clinical findings; (2) diagnoses of examining physicians; (3) evidence of

pain; and (4) the claimant's age, education and work history. Id. at 1005. Once

the claimant meets this burden, as here, it becomes the Commissioner's burden

to prove that the claimant is capable, given her age, education and work history,

of engaging in another kind of substantial gainful employment which exists in

the national economy. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 836 (11th Cir. 1985).

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 13
4

The task for the Magistrate Judge is to determine whether the

Commissioner's decision to deny claimant benefits, on the basis that she can

perform the full range of sedentary work activity and is not disabled under the

grids, is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as

more than a scintilla and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402

U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). "In determining whether

substantial evidence exists, we must view the record as a whole, taking into

account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the [Commissioner's]

decision." Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986).

In this case, the plaintiff contends that the following errors were made:

(1) the ALJ committed reversible error by failing to specify her severe

impairments; and (2) the ALJ erred in finding she can perform the full range of

sedentary work in light of the contents of her treating physician’s physical

capacities evaluation which indicates the ability to lift up to 10 pounds only five

hours a day.

A. ALJ’s Failure to Specify Which of Plaintiff’s Impairments

Were Severe. In her proposed report and recommendation, plaintiff contends

that the ALJ merely found she had severe impairments without specifically

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 4 of 13
5

identifying which of those impairments are severe thereby rendering his

decision reversible pursuant to Kyles v. Barnhart, CA 01-0898-P-M. (Doc. 13,

at 6) Plaintiff is certainly correct that this Court held in Kyles that where there

is uncertainty about which of plaintiff’s alleged impairments are severe, “the

Court cannot examine whether the ALJ has properly rejected certain

impairments as not severe[]” and, therefore, “the Court cannot say that the

ALJ’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence.” Kyles v. Barnhart, CA 01-

0898-P-C, Doc. 17, at 4. The Court finds Kyles factually inapposite to the

instant case inasmuch as in that case the ALJ never “set out and/or discussed

which of the four alleged impairments [i.e., degenerative disc disease, sleep

apnea, chronic pain, and bilateral arthritis in her knees] he found to be

severe[,]”id. at 3 & 4; in this case, however, the ALJ specifically discussed the

impairments which plaintiff alleged were disabling in her applications for

benefits (see Tr. 26-29, 35 & 61-74), and implicitly determined that those

impairments (left knee problems and hypertension) were severe (Tr. 19).

The claimant, in documentation of record, has alleged left knee

problems and hypertension as a basis of disability. The

undersigned concludes that, while the record contains evidence

of the existence of these impairments, the objectively

demonstrable evidence of record fails to support that the claimant

is as impaired as she has alleged. The undersigned concludes that

no credible treating or consultative physician has opined that the

claimant was disabled because of any physical condition or from

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 5 of 13
6

any resulting symptoms. 

The Administrative Law Judge recognizes that the claimant did

sustain an injury in October 2005 which required arthroscopic

surgery but the records clearly show that she has improved to the

extent that she is capable of performing work activity.

Specifically, a Functional Capacity performed by David

Dimmick, M.Ed. on May 3, 2006 revealed the claimant

demonstrated the ability to perform full sedentary and partial

light physical activity. In addition, a recent MRI revealed only

mild degenerative changes. The Administrative Law Judge has

assigned determinative weight to the opinion of George Corbett,

M.D., the claimant’s treating physician who found that she can

sit for 8 hours at a time and for 8 hours during an 8-hour

workday. He found that she can stand and walk for 3 hours at a

time and for 3 hours during an 8-hour workday. Dr. Corbett

found the claimant can lift and carry 5 pounds eight hours a day

and up to 20 pounds 3 hours during an 8-hour day. He found she

is able to use her hands for simple grasping, pushing and pulling

of arm controls and fine manipulation. Dr. Corbett found the

claimant can bend and reach for 8 hours during an 8-hour

workday and squat and climb for one hour during an 8-hour

workday. Additionally, Dr. Corbett found the claimant has no

restrictions on being around moving machinery; exposure to

marked changes in temperature and humidity; driving and

exposure to dust, fumes and gases. He further found the claimant

can work 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week on a sustained basis

within the above limitations, without missing more than 2 days

of work per month . . . .

The Administrative Law Judge recognizes that the Disability

Specialist found the claimant is capable of performing light work

activity but after carefully considering the entire record, he gives

the claimant the full benefit of the doubt and finds that she can

perform at least sedentary work activity which involves lifting

and/or carrying no more than 10 pounds at a time and

occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers,

and small tools.

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 6 of 13
7

The undersigned further notes that the claimant’s clinical

examination findings have often been found to be normal or

minimally abnormal, and the objective diagnostic evidence of

record has been sparse. As stated above, the most recent MRI

revealed only mild degenerative changes.

It is noteworthy that documentation of record does not contain

any hospitalizations for the claimant for physical conditions since

her alleged onset of disability. The Administrative Law Judge

notes that the claimant was discharged from physical therapy

because of noncompliance. He further notes that Dr. Corbett

recommended an anti-inflammatory program as well as a mild

pain management program.

Nothing in the record suggests that the claimant’s physical

impairments have been incapable of being alleviated or

controlled with the proper and regular use of prescription

medications. The record contains no evidence of the claimant’s

ongoing difficulties with side effects of medication.

 

All of the above factors lead the undersigned to a conclusion that

the claimant’s alleged physical symptoms and conditions are not

of a disabling degree. After considering the entirety of the record,

the undersigned concludes that the claimant would not be

precluded from performing, on a regular and sustained basis, the

physical requirements of sedentary work.

(Tr. 19-20) This discussion of plaintiff’s impairments by the ALJ can be read

in no other way but to establish that the ALJ recognized that though Pickett’s

left knee problems and hypertension are severe impairments they do not prevent

her from performing sedentary work activity. Simply put, this Court is not in

the same position as it was in Kyles of being uncertain about what impairments

are severe and what impairments are non-severe inasmuch as the ALJ, in this

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 7 of 13
1 While it is less clear whether the ALJ considered plaintiff’s back impairment to

be a severe impairment, he did note that plaintiff’s most recent MRI revealed only mild

degenerative changes. (Compare Tr. 20 (“[T]he most recent MRI revealed only mild

degenerative changes.”) with Tr. 18 (“An MRI on June 20, 2006 revealed mild left disc spur

complex C6-C7, mild right bulging C3-C4 and mild degenerative disc disease with no herniated

nucleus pulposus or spinal stenosis.”)) Any failure on the ALJ’s part to give any more specific

indication whether plaintiff’s back problems constitute a severe impairment is simply not

reversible error because the evidence of record related to those problems is not inconsistent with

the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion that Pickett retains the residual functional capacity to perform the

physical exertional and non-exertional requirements of sedentary work. (See Tr. 243-254) 

8

case, by implication, found plaintiff’s left knee problems and hypertension to

be severe impairments. The Court concludes that this finding is supported by

substantial evidence in the record. (Compare Tr. 111-242, 251, 261-269 & 295-

302 with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a) & 416.921(a) (2007) (“An impairment or

combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your

physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”))1

 Accordingly, the ALJ

made no error in this regard.

B. Sedentary Work Activity. It is clear in this circuit that the

Commissioner of Social Security must develop "a full and fair record regarding

the vocational opportunities available to a claimant." Allen v. Sullivan, 880

F.2d 1200, 1201 (11th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). The Commissioner must

articulate specific jobs that the claimant can perform given her age, education

and work history, if any, "and this finding must be supported by substantial

evidence, not mere intuition or conjecture." See id. (citation omitted) “There

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 8 of 13
2 Dr. Corbett’s PCE clearly establishes that plaintiff, in addition to being able to lift

and carry up to 10 pounds for five hours out of an 8-hour workday, can lift and carry up to

twenty (20) pounds for the remaining three hours out of an 8-hour workday. (Tr. 251)

9

are two avenues by which the ALJ may determine whether the claimant has the

ability to adjust to other work in the national economy. The first is by applying

the Medical Vocational Guidelines.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1239

(11th Cir. 2004); see also Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228-1229 (11th Cir.

1999) (“In a disability determination, once a claimant proves that she can no

longer perform her past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner

‘to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy which, given the

claimant’s impairments, the claimant can perform. . . . Often, the Commissioner

meets this burden by relying on the grids.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1089, 120

S.Ct. 1723, 146 L.Ed.2d 644 (2000). 

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s use of the grids to carry the

Commissioner’s fifth-step burden was error given Dr. George Corbett’s

limitation that she can lift and carry up to ten pounds only five hours out of an

8-hour workday. (Compare Tr. 251 (Corbett’s PCE) with Tr. 20 (ALJ gives

determinative weight to Corbett’s PCE))2

 

The Commissioner’s regulations define sedentary work as work which

“involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 9 of 13
10

carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools.” 20 C.F.R. §

404.1567(2) (2007); see also DiLauro v. Apfel, 1998 WL 1470869, *4 (E.D.

N.C. 1998) (“Sedentary work generally involves the capacity to sit for at least

six hours in an eight-hour workday, to lift a maximum of ten pounds, and to

walk or stand for two to three hours in an eight-hour day.”), aff’d, 188 F.3d 501

(4th Cir. 1999); Perez v. Shalala, 890 F.Supp. 218, 224 (S.D. N.Y. 1995)

(“Sedentary work involves lifting no more than ten pounds at a time and

occasionally (no more than one-third of the workday) lifting or carrying light

objects.”), aff’d, 77 F.3d 41 (2nd Cir. 1996). In Prochaska v. Barnhart, 2005

WL 901202 (W. D. Wis. 2005), aff’d in part & vacated in part on other

grounds, 454 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2006), the court indicated that a claimant’s

inability to frequently lift and carry objects weighing up to ten pounds does not

preclude the performance of the full range of sedentary work. Id. at *13

(“Although plaintiff may be correct that her inability frequently to lift and carry

objects weighing up to 10 pounds might preclude her from performing the full

range of light work, . . . she is incorrect that such a limitation would preclude

her from performing sedentary work. . . . It is unreasonable for plaintiff to

suggest that Dr. Cragg’s failure to indicate that she can frequently carry objects

weighing up to 10 pounds means that she is unable occasionally to carry even

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 10 of 13
3 During oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Dr. Robert Zarzour’s

September 27, 2006 letter reference that plaintiff would have “bending . . . restrictions . . .

[which] would preclude her working 8 hours a day as a cook[,]” (Tr. 243-244) establishes that

she would be unable to perform the bending requirements of the full range of sedentary work.

The undersigned disagrees. Based upon the minimal objective findings regarding plaintiff’s

cervical and lumbar spines found by Dr. Zarzour, the remaining medical evidence of record, and

that fact that Dr. Zarzour only indicated that the bending restrictions would preclude plaintiff’s

performance of her past work as a cook, the undersigned concludes that nothing in the record

contradicts the ALJ’s implicit finding that Pickett can perform the occasional bending required 

for the full range of sedentary work. Frustaglia v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 829

F.2d 192, 195 (1st Cir. 1987) (“The ALJ found that the claimant could not do repeated bending,

i.e., recurring again and again, which by definition is a more strenuous mode than occasional

activity. It is fairly obvious that such a restriction would have very little effect on the ability to

perform the full range of work at either the light or sedentary level.”); see Russell v. Sullivan,

950 F.2d 542, 544-546 (8th Cir. 1991) (affirming the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff could

perform the full range of sedentary work, though the evidence indicated that plaintiff had limited

ability to bend, lift and stoop). 

11

light objects such as files or small tools.”). In consideration of the decision in

Prochaska, and permissibly reading Dr. Corbett’s PCE as establishing not only

that Pickett can lift and carry up to ten pounds for five hours out of an 8-hour

workday but also that she can lift and carry up to twenty (20) pounds the

remaining three hours in an 8-hour workday, the undersigned recommends that

the Court find that the ALJ did not err in determining that plaintiff can perform

the full range of sedentary work.3

 The use of the grids in this case was

appropriate to carry the defendant’s burden of establishing that Pickett has the

ability to adjust to other work in the national economy. Accordingly, the ALJ’s

fifth-step denial of benefits is due to be affirmed.

CONCLUSION

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 11 of 13
12

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff benefits be affirmed. 

The instructions which follow the undersigned’s signature contain

important information regarding objections to the report and recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. 

DONE this the 25th day of January, 2008.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 12 of 13
13

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must,

within ten days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with

the Clerk of this court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district judge

of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings

of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738

(11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The

procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate judge in a

dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by

filing a ‘Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation’

within ten days after being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless

a different time is established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made and

the basis for the objection. The objecting party shall submit to the district

judge, at the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the party’s

arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed

de novo and a different disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy

of the original brief may be submitted or referred to and incorporated into the

brief in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the objection. 

A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals; only

the district judge's order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge finds that the tapes and original records

in this case are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this

recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the United States will pay the

cost of the transcript.

_s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY____________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00467-BH-C Document 16 Filed 01/24/08 Page 13 of 13