Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-01066/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-01066-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAWN ARLITA HARRIS,

Claimant,

vs.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:16-cv-1066-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND

Claimant, Dawn Arlita Harris, commenced this action on June 30, 2016,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of

the Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”),

and thereby denying her claim for a period of disability, disability insurance, and

supplemental security income benefits. 

The court’s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is

a narrow one. The scope of review is limited to determining whether there is

substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the

Commissioner, and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Lamb v.

Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253

(11th Cir. 1983).

FILED

 2017 Feb-14 PM 01:59

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:16-cv-01066-CLS Document 10 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 7
Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s decision is neither supported by

substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legalstandards. Specifically,

claimant asserts that the ALJ failed to consider her carpal tunnel syndrome and

lumbar degenerative disc disease with pain syndrome to be severe impairments, and

that he failed to properly consider all of her impairments. Upon review of the record,

the court concludes that these contentions have merit, and this matter should be

remanded to the Commissioner for further review. 

The ALJ found that claimant had only one severe impairment: mood

disorder/mild depression.1 Claimant asserts that the ALJ also should have classified

her carpal tunnelsyndrome and lumbar degenerative disc disease with pain syndrome

as severe impairments. Social Security regulations define a “severe” impairment as

one that “significantly limits[a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work

activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c) (alteration supplied). “An

impairment can be considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality which

has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere

with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work

experience.” Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d. 914, 920 (11th Cir. 1984). 

This court does not need to reach the decision of whether claimant’s carpal

tunnel syndrome and degenerative disc disease should have been classified assevere

1

 Tr. 14. 

2

Case 2:16-cv-01066-CLS Document 10 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 7
impairments. As the Eleventh Circuit explained in Medina v. Social Security

Administration, 636 F. App’x 490 (11th Cir. 2016):

Step two of the [five-step process for adjudicating Social Security

claims, during which the Commissioner must determine whether the

claimant has a severe impairment] merely “acts as a filter” Jamison v.

Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987). In other words, “if no

severe impairment is shown the claim is denied, but the finding of any

severe impairment, whether or not it qualifies as a disability and whether

or not it results from a single severe impairment or a combination of

impairments that together qualify as severe, is enough” to proceed with

the rest of the five-step analysis. Id. Thus, even if [the claimant’s] other

conditions should have been categorized as severe impairments, any

error was harmless because the ALJ determined that her obesity and

“thyroid cancer status post total thyroidectomy” were severe

impairments, allowing him to move onto step three of the test. See

Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that the

complained-of error was harmless because it did not impact the step

being challenged); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Medina, 636 F. App’x at 492-93 (alterations supplied). In the present case, the ALJ

found that claimantsuffered fromother severe impairments and then proceeded to the

next step of the sequential analysis. Accordingly, even if the failure to also classify

carpal tunnel syndrome and degenerative disc disease as “severe” was in error, such

an error would have been harmless. 

Claimant also asserts that the ALJ failed to consider her carpal tunnel

syndrome and disc disease at steps three, four, and five of the sequential process,

when determining whether she met a Listing, whether she could return to her past

relevant work, and whether she could perform other work existing in significant

3

Case 2:16-cv-01066-CLS Document 10 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 7
numbers in the national economy. Social Security regulations state the following

with regard to the Commissioner’s duty in evaluating multiple impairments:

In determining whether your physical or mental impairment or

impairments are of a sufficient medicalseverity thatsuch impairment or

impairments could be the basis of eligibility under the law, we will

consider the combined effect of all of your impairments without regard

to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of

sufficient severity. If we do find a medically severe combination of

impairments, the combined impact of the impairments will be considered

throughout the disability determination process. If we do not find that

you have a medically severe combination of impairments, we will

determine that you are not disabled.

20 C.F.R. § 404.1523. See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(e), 416.945(e) (stating that,

when the claimant has any severe impairment, the ALJ is required to assess the

limiting effects of all of the claimant’s impairments — including those that are not

severe — in determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity). 

Here, the ALJ thoroughly discussed claimant’s lumbar degenerative disc

disease with pain syndrome,2but he barely acknowledged claimant’s carpal tunnel

syndrome. Claimant mentioned carpal tunnelsyndrome and problems with her hands

several times in her disability application paperwork.

3

 She also testified during the

administrative hearing that her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome caused pain,

numbness, and swelling, and it prevented her from performing activitieslike opening

2

See Tr. 15-17, 20-22. 

3

 Tr. 352, 363-64, 379-81. 

4

Case 2:16-cv-01066-CLS Document 10 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 7
jars and bottles, gripping items, and buttoning a shirt. She wore hand splints and

stated that her doctors had recommended surgery, but she could not afford it.

4

Moreover, claimant’s treating physician diagnosed her with bilateral carpal tunnel

syndrome,5

and an orthopedic specialist confirmed the diagnosis after a nerve

conduction study.

6 Of course, a diagnosis does not necessarily mean a significant

functional limitation, but here, it cannot be determined whether the ALJ actually

evaluated the functional effects of claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome. The ALJ

acknowledged that, during the administrative hearing, claimant “indicated she had

difficulty with her hands . . . .,”7and he summarily stated that “[t]he physical findings

in the record do not establish the existence of . . . carpal tunnel symptoms . . .

indicative of protracted pain of the intensity, frequency, and severity alleged” by

plaintiff.

8 Even so, there was no discussion of the medical records relating to

claimant’s carpal tunnelsyndrome, and no explanation of why the record findings did

notsupport the alleged severity of her symptoms. Therefore, it cannot be determined

from the current record whether the ALJ adequately considered the effect of

claimant’s carpalsyndrome in determining her residualfunctional capacityto perform

4

 Tr. 40-42. 

5

See Tr. 565, 561, 575, 579-80. 

6

 Tr. 708, 807-08, 811-13. 

7

 Tr. 20. 

8

 Tr. 16 (alteration and ellipses supplied). 

5

Case 2:16-cv-01066-CLS Document 10 Filed 02/14/17 Page 5 of 7
a full range of work at all exertional levels.

9 Remand is warranted to correct that

deficiency. See Williams v. Barnhart, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1198 (M.D. Ala. 2002)

(“Notwithstanding the diagnoses and objective evidence supporting the claimant’s

other impairments, the ALJ made no express determination as to the severity of the

claimant’s coronary disease, asthma, glaucoma, or obesity. Nor does the decision

reveal the extent to which the ALJ evaluated those symptoms or impairments beyond

step two of the sequential evaluation process. Accordingly, the ALJ’s failure to

consider or even address these impairments as a part of his determination of severity

was reversible error.”); Wuerth v. Astrue, No. 806-CV-1353-T-30TBM, 2008 WL

680211, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2008) (finding that “remand is warranted because

it is not possible to ascertain whether the ALJ considered each of Plaintiff’s

impairments”). 

Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and this

action is REMANDED to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

for further findings on the effect of claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome on her ability

to perform work-related activities, and for other proceedings consistent with this

memorandum opinion and order. 

9

See Tr. 20 (“I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform [a] fullrange of work at all exertional levels as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except

she can frequently interaction [sic] with the public, co-workers, and supervisors. She can perform

simple, repetitive tasks.”) (alterations supplied). 

6

Case 2:16-cv-01066-CLS Document 10 Filed 02/14/17 Page 6 of 7
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this file.

DONE this 14th day of February, 2017.

______________________________

United States District Judge

7

Case 2:16-cv-01066-CLS Document 10 Filed 02/14/17 Page 7 of 7