Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00139/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BRAND TATE, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. :

 : CIVIL ACTION 15-0139-M

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Social Security Commissioner, :

 :

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), 

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security 

ruling denying claims for disability insurance benefits and 

Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter SSI) (Docs. 1, 14). 

The parties filed written consent and this action has been 

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all 

proceedings and order judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 19). Oral argument was 

waived in this action (Doc. 20). After considering the 

administrative record and the memoranda of the parties, it is 

ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and 

that this action be DISMISSED.

This Court is not free to reweigh the evidence or 

substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of Health and 

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 21
2

Human Services, Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th

Cir. 1983), which must be supported by substantial evidence. 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial 

evidence requires “that the decision under review be supported 

by evidence sufficient to justify a reasoning mind in accepting 

it; it is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” 

Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 918 (11th Cir. 1984), quoting 

Jones v. Schweiker, 551 F.Supp. 205 (D. Md. 1982).

At the time of the administrative hearing, Plaintiff was 

thirty-six years old, had completed a high school education (Tr. 

200), and had previous work experience as a garbage collection 

driver and embroidery machine operator (Tr. 217). Plaintiff 

alleges disability due to chronic back pain with a bulging disc 

at L5-S1, chronic neck pain, bilateral shoulder pain, 

hypertension, obesity, major depressive disorder, severe with 

psychosis, anxiety, right knee pain, obstructive sleep apnea, 

and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (Doc. 13).

The Plaintiff applied for disability benefits and SSI on 

May 7, 2012, asserting disability as of April 28, 2012 (Tr. 250; 

335-44). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, 

determining that although she could not perform her past 

relevant work, Tate could perform specified sedentary work (Tr. 

250-67). Plaintiff requested review of the hearing decision 

(Tr. 188-90), but the Appeals Council denied it (Tr. 24-29).

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 2 of 21
3

Plaintiff claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not 

supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Tate alleges 

that: (1) The ALJ’s residual functional capacity (hereinafter 

RFC) determination is unsupported by the evidence; and (2) the 

Appeals Council did not properly review newly-submitted evidence 

(Doc. 14). Defendant has responded to—and denies—these claims 

(Doc. 15). A summary of the relevant record evidence follows.1

On February 1, 2012, Dr. Alex K. Curtis examined Plaintiff 

for an upper respiratory infection and hypertension; she was in 

no acute distress and did not appear uncomfortable (Tr. 463-66; 

see generally Tr. 455-73). Her weight was 208 pounds with a 

Body Mass Index (hereinafter BMI) of 33.6, making her moderately 

obese.2

On March 6, 2012, Dr. Bryan S. Givhan, a Neurological 

Surgeon, examined Tate for back and neck injuries caused by a 

motor vehicle accident three months earlier (Tr. 477-78; see 

generally Tr. 475-94). Cervical and thoracic spine MRI’s were 

normal, but the lumbar scan showed a mild bulging disc at L5-S1; 

she had had physical therapy (hereinafter PT) and been released 

back to work, left that job because of pain, and found light 

work elsewhere. Givhan noted neck pain, radiating to the right 

																																																							 1The Court finds it unnecessary to summarize medical evidence 

pre-dating Tate’s asserted onset date of April 28, 2012 by a long 

period. Likewise, evidence not relating to the claims raised herein 

will go unreported.

2 http://www.bestbmicalculator.com/33.6/

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 3 of 21
4

shoulder area, but not into the low back; it was not associated 

with weakness or numbness in Tate’s arms or legs. Motor exam 

was 5/5 in all muscle groups; she had normal station and gate. 

Plaintiff had full range of motion (hereinafter ROM) in her neck 

with no praraspinal spasm but complaints of pain. The Doctor 

offered more PT and limited her to thirty-pound floor-to-waist 

and waist-to-shoulder lifting; Plaintiff was to continue taking 

Ibuprofen and Tramadol3 along with Neurontin4 and Baclofen.5 

The Therapist noted that Tate rated her average pain as five on 

a ten-point scale and stated it radiated into her thoracic 

spine, interfering with sleep (Tr. 488-93). The Therapist noted 

PT had improved her cervical ROM and strength to within normal 

limits over a two-week period though she was still experiencing 

pain in her lower back (Tr. 482). On March 27, 2012, Dr. Givhan 

could not explain why Plaintiff was experiencing her worsening 

pain; he recommended that she return to work. The Doctor would 

not provide “any long term impairment or other treatment for her 

chronic pain syndrome” (Tr. 476). 

On April 12, 2012, Tate complained of neck pain and 

																																																							 3Tramadol “is indicated for the management of moderate to 

moderately severe chronic pain in adults who require around-the-clock 

treatment of their pain for an extended period of time.” Error! Main 

Document Only.Physician's Desk Reference 2520 (66th ed. 2012).

4Error!	Main	Document	Only.Neurontin is used in the treatment of 

partial seizures. Physician's Desk Reference 2110-13 (52nd ed. 1998). 

5Baclofen is a muscle relaxer used in treating muscle symptoms 

caused by multiple sclerosis, including spasm, pain, and stiffness. 

See http://www.drugs.com/baclofen.html

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 4 of 21
5

stiffness, back, tailbone, and right shoulder pain, and joint 

pain in the knees, elbows, hands, and wrists (Tr. 455-57). Dr. 

Curtis noted tenderness on palpation in the cervical and 

thoracolumbar spine and diagnosed lumbago.

On April 19, 2012, at Tate’s request, Dr. Givhan ordered a 

cervical epidural block (Tr. 475). At an examination by Dr. 

Wesley L. Spruill at the SpineCare Center eleven days later, 

Plaintiff rated her pain as averaging three and at four at its 

most intense; she had no complaints of tingling, numbness, or 

weakness (Tr. 503; see generally 501-08). Spruill gave her the 

block.

On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff went to Physicians Care of 

Thomasville complaining of back pain, radiating from her upper 

back down into the lower back; she reported that an epidural had 

helped for only a week and that Dr. Curtis had prescribed her 

Lortab6 (Tr. 513-14). Tate complained of no other pain and no 

numbness in the legs; though she appeared uncomfortable, she was 

in no acute distress. Plaintiff had back tenderness and muscle 

spasm; straight-leg raising was limited by stiffness 

bilaterally. The exam was normal otherwise; Flexeril7 and 

																																																							 6Error! Main Document Only.Lortab is a semisynthetic narcotic 

analgesic used for “the relief of moderate to moderately severe pain.” 

Physician's Desk Reference 2926-27 (52nd ed. 1998).

7Error!	Main	Document	Only.Flexeril is used along with “rest and 

physical therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute, 

painful musculoskeletal conditions.” Physician's Desk Reference 1455-

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 5 of 21
6

Celebrex8 were prescribed.

On May 22, 2012, Dr. Judy Travis examined Tate who 

complained of knee, back, and neck pain for which she was 

prescribed Lortab and Celebrex; Plaintiff saw the Doctor four 

more times through August 3 for prescription refills (Tr. 610-

12). 

On September 17, Dr. Lee Loftin, at Tuscaloosa Ear Nose and

Throat, examined Tate for complaints of daily throat burning and 

discomfort, lasting all day; her previous medications included 

Demerol9 (Tr. 601-07). Several months earlier, Plaintiff had 

begun experiencing sinus problems and sleep apnea every night of 

moderate difficulty, causing headaches, sleepiness and fatigue; 

she weighed 210 pounds with a BMI of 36.18, making her morbidly 

obese.10 Lofton noted no abnormalities in Tate’s eyes, head and 

face, eyes, ears, hearing, neck, extremities, or her lymphatic, 

neurologic, pulmonary, or cardiovascular systems; she was 

oriented in three spheres with no depression, anxiety, or 

agitation. The Doctor found a deviated nasal septum, turbinate 

hypertrophy, obstructive sleep apnea, and tonsillitis; he 

																																																																																																																																																																				 57 (48th ed. 1994).

8Error!	Main	Document	Only.Celebrex is used to relieve the signs and 

symptoms of osteo-arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis in adults, and for 

the management of acute pain in adults. Physician's Desk Reference

2585-89 (58th ed. 2004). 

9Error!	Main	Document	Only.Demerol is a narcotic analgesic used for 

the relief of moderate to severe pain. Physician's Desk Reference

2570-72 (52nd ed. 1998).

10 http://www.bestbmicalculator.com/obesity/

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 6 of 21
7

encouraged her to quit smoking. On October 29, Tate underwent a 

polysomnogram that indicated obstructive sleep apnea (Tr. 608).

On November 9, 2012, West Alabama Mental Health records 

report Tate’s complaints of severe, chronic anxiety and 

depression with moderately auditory and visual hallucinations; 

her appearance, psychomotor activity, speech, mood, impulse 

control, thought process and content, and appetite were within 

normal limits (Tr. 591-99). Plaintiff denied suicidal or 

violent thoughts; Dr. Anne Srilata diagnosed her to have 

recurrent, severe, major depressive disorder with psychotic 

features. On December 4, Tate reported being unable to relax as 

well as increased anxiety, restlessness, and paranoid ideation 

(Tr. 589-90); on January 7 and February 15, 2013, she reported 

minimal progress in her treatment plan (Tr. 585-88). 

On January 17, 2013, Dr. Kevin D. Thompson, with the 

University Orthopaedic Clinic & Spine Center, examined Plaintiff 

for complaints of right knee stiffness and pain that she rated 

as five on a ten-point scale (Tr. 614-19).11 Thompson found Tate 

in no apparent distress, oriented in three spheres, with normal 

motor, reflexes and sensory response; her gait was normal. The 

Doctor’s impression was right joint pain, right deranged post 

medial meniscus, right old anterior cruciate ligament (non-

																																																							 11The Court notes this evidence was submitted to and admitted by 

the Appeals Council but was not considered by the ALJ (Tr. 28, 271).

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 7 of 21
8

traumatic), and right medical cruciate ligament. On January 25, 

2013, Plaintiff underwent, among other things, right knee ACL 

reconstruction and medial meniscal repair surgery (Tr. 633-37). 

On February 7, following surgery, Tate rated her pain as threeto-four of ten and denied neurological complaints; she could 

perform a straight leg raise and had ROM of zero-to-ninety 

degrees with no calf swelling or tenderness (Tr. 620-21). On 

March 7, Plaintiff’s pain was down to two-to-three; she was 

doing well, without complaints (Tr. 622-23). On April 18, Tate 

was feeling better with her pain rated as one-to-two; she had 

had no instability or swelling (Tr. 624-25). She had full ROM 

and full strength. On May 30, Plaintiff’s right knee pain was 

rated as one; she was released to engage in activities as 

tolerated, but Thompson stressed that she needed to continue 

doing strength, endurance, and agility training for at least a 

year (Tr. 626-27). 

From March 13 through May 29, 2013, Tate underwent physical 

therapy, at Bryan W. Whitfield Hospital, achieving full ROM in 

her lower extremities (Tr. 534-78).

On April 5, 2013, records from West Alabama Mental Health 

report that Plaintiff was doing better with her depression and 

anxiety management; her thoughts were within normal limits, her 

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 8 of 21
9

judgment was adequate, but her insight was poor (Tr. 674-75).12 

A month later, only minimal progress was made; she reported pain 

and insomnia (Tr. 672-73). On July 2, 2013, moderate progress 

was made on her treatment plan goals though she reported 

increased visual hallucinations and staying awake to avoid them 

(Tr. 665-70). On July 26, there was moderate progress in all 

phases of Tate’s treatment plan goals; judgment and insight were 

considered adequate (Tr. 663-64). On August 23, there was only 

minimal progress; Plaintiff complained that she was not getting 

enough sleep and that her family did not give her enough space 

(Tr. 656-61). On September 27, the Psychiatrist noted Tate’s 

depression of one year and various drug treatments (Tr. 650-

54).13

On May 6, 2013, Dr. Arturo Otero performed a nerve 

conduction test that revealed the following: (1) right median 

nerve entrapment neuropathy at the carpal tunnel area and 

sensory and motor involvement; and (2) mild to moderate left 

median nerve entrapment neuropathy at the carpal tunnel area 

with sensory involvement only (Tr. 580-83). The bilateral upper 

extremities were otherwise normal. 

On May 20, Dr. Stephen J. Robidoux examined Tate who was 

																																																							 12The Court notes this evidence was submitted to and admitted by 

the Appeals Council but was not considered by the ALJ (Tr. 28, 271).

13The Court notes, frankly, that these notes are indecipherable; 

however, Tate references them nowhere in her brief (see Doc. 14).

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 9 of 21
10

taking Lortab, Indocin,14 Zoloft,15 Lorazepam,16 and sleep apnea 

and hypertension medications (Tr. 527-32). The Doctor noted 

repeatedly that Tate was vague about her medical and social 

history but he reviewed that which had been provided by the 

Social Security Administration. Robidoux noted she weighed 208 

pounds, standing five foot, four; she was in no acute distress 

and had normal, unaided gait though she used a cane and back 

brace—neither prescribed. Tate’s neck was supple with full ROM 

with no muscle spasm or tenderness; ROM was normal in her back 

and in all extremities with no tenderness. The Doctor noted 

assertions of inability to stand a particular way, though she 

did so without discomfort during other parts of the examination; 

he found her neck and knee both normal. Robidoux noted that 

there were no limitations in sitting, standing, walking, 

carrying, handling objects, using hand and/or foot controls, 

talking, listening, travel, or driving (Tr. 532). The Doctor 

completed a physical capacities evaluation (hereinafter PCE) 

																																																							 14Error!	Main	Document	Only.Indocin is a non-steroidal drug found to 

be effective in the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid 

arthritis, moderate to severe ankylosing spondylitis, moderate to 

severe osteoarthritis, acute painful shoulder (bursitis and/or 

tendinitis), and acute gouty arthritis. Physician's Desk Reference

1676 (52nd ed. 1998).

15Error!	Main	Document	Only.Zoloft is “indicated for the treatment of 

depression.” Physician's Desk Reference 2229-34 (52nd ed. 1998). 16Error!	Main	Document	Only.“Ativan (lorazepam) is indicated for the 

management of anxiety disorders or for the short-term relief of the 

symptoms of anxiety or anxiety associated with depressive symptoms.” 

Its use is not recommended “in patients with a primary depressive 

disorder or psychosis.” Physician's Desk Reference 2516-17 (48th ed. 

1994).

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 10 of 21
11

indicating that she could lift and carry up to twenty pounds 

continuously; she could sit eight hours at a time and walk or 

stand four hours at a time and seven hours out of an eight-hour 

day (Tr. 521-26). Tate could continuously reach, handle, 

finger, feel, push/pull, balance, and use foot controls 

bilaterally; Robidoux gave no opinion on her ability to climb 

stairs, ramps, ladders, or scaffolds, stoop, kneel, crouch, or 

crawl because of recent knee surgery. Tate had no environmental

work limitations; the Doctor only limited her from squatting, 

again because of her knee, but indicated that it was only 

temporary. 

On June 5, 2013, Dr. Travis treated Plaintiff for a 

headache and sinus issues (Tr. 677-80).17 On September 6, Tate 

complained of low back, left shoulder, and right knee pain; 

Travis noted that she was in no acute distress and had full ROM 

throughout except for her left shoulder/arm with no muscle 

atrophy or tenderness for which she was given an injection (Tr. 

681-84). On September 18, Plaintiff appeared for a headache 

(Tr. 685-87). On September 30, Tate was seen in a follow up 

examination for lab work; no complaints were registered (Tr. 

688-89). 

This concludes the relevant evidence of record.

																																																							 17The Court notes this evidence was submitted to and admitted by 

the Appeals Council but was not considered by the ALJ (Tr. 28, 271).

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 11 of 21
12

In bringing this action, Tate first claims that the ALJ’s 

RFC determination is unsupported by the evidence (Doc. 14, pp. 

2-5). The Court notes that the ALJ is responsible for 

determining a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546 (2013). 

That decision can not be based on “sit and squirm” 

jurisprudence. Wilson v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 513, 518 (11th Cir. 

1984). However, the Court also notes that the social security 

regulations state that Plaintiff is responsible for providing 

evidence from which the ALJ can make an RFC determination. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). 

The ALJ’s RFC determination was as follows:

[T]he claimant has the residual functional 

capacity to perform sedentary work as 

defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a)18 and 

416.967(a) with the exceptions noted herein: 

The claimant can occasionally lift and/or 

carry 10 pounds and frequently lift and/or 

carry less than 10 pounds. The claimant can 

stand and/or walk at least 2 hours in an 8-

hour workday and must periodically alternate 

sitting and standing to relieve pain or 

discomfort. The claimant can frequently use 

her left upper extremity for pushing and/or 

pulling. The claimant can occasionally 

climb ramps and stairs. The claimant cannot 

climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. The 

claimant can frequently balance, 

occasionally stoop and crouch. The claimant 

																																																							 18Error!	Main	Document	Only.“Sedentary work involves lifting no more 

than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles 

like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary job 

is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking 

and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are 

sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other 

sedentary criteria are met.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (2014).

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 12 of 21
13

cannot kneel or crawl. The claimant can 

frequently reach in all directions including 

overhead. The claimant can frequently use 

her left upper extremity for handling and 

fingering. The claimant should avoid 

concentrated exposure to extreme cold, 

extreme heat, wetness, humidity, vibration, 

fumes, odors, dust, gases and poor 

ventilation. The claimant should avoid all 

exposure to hazardous machinery and 

unprotected heights. The claimant can 

interact appropriately with supervisors but 

this should be casual and non-confrontational. The claimant can interact appropriately with co-workers but this should be casual 

and non-confrontational. The claimant can 

interact appropriately to customers/general 

public but this should be casual and nonconfrontational. The claimant can respond 

appropriately to work pressures in a usual 

work setting. The claimant can respond 

appropriately to changes in a routine work 

setting but changes should be infrequent and 

gradually introduced. The claimant can use 

judgment in simple one and two-step work 

related decisions. The claimant can 

occasionally use judgment in detailed or 

complex work related decisions. The 

claimant can understand, remember and carry 

out simple one and two-step instructions. 

The claimant can occasionally understand, 

remember and carry out detailed or complex 

instructions.

(Tr. 255). 

With regard to her RFC claim, Tate asserts that the ALJ did 

not properly consider the combined effects of all of her 

impairments (Doc. 14, p. 3). It is true that "the Secretary 

shall consider the combined effect of all of the individual's 

impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if 

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 13 of 21
14

considered separately, would be of such severity." 42 U.S.C. § 

423(d)(2)(C). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted 

this instruction and further found that "[i]t is the duty of the 

administrative law judge to make specific and well-articulated 

findings as to the effect of the combination of impairments and 

to decide whether the combined impairments cause the claimant to 

be disabled." Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629, 635 (11th Cir. 

1984); see also Reeves v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 519 (11th Cir. 

1984); Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387 (11th Cir. 1982).

In the ALJ's findings, he lists Plaintiff's impairments and 

concludes by saying that she “does not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the 

severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, 

Subpart P, Regulations No. 4" (Tr. 253). This language has been 

upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as sufficient 

consideration of the effects of the combinations of a claimant's 

impairments. Jones v. Department of Health and Human Services, 

941 F.2d 1529, 1533 (11th Cir. 1991) (the claimant does not have 

“an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or 

medically equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, 

Regulations No. 4"). Though this generally ends the discussion 

of Tate’s claim regarding the combination of her impairments, 

the Court will continue with Tate’s more specific assertions. 

Plaintiff goes on to assert that the ALJ did not consider 

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 14 of 21
15

problems with anxiety, her right upper extremity, and her morbid 

obesity in determining her RFC (Doc. 14, pp. 3-6). The evidence 

shows that Dr. Otero, after conducting nerve conduction tests, 

found right median entrapment neuropathy at the carpal tunnel 

area, sensory and motor involvement (Tr. 580). Though Plaintiff 

asserts that the ALJ’s decision is silent as to this finding, 

the RFC clearly found that Tate “can frequently use her left 

upper extremity for handling and fingering” (Tr. 255). By not 

finding that Tate could use her right arm for the same behavior, 

he demonstrated his consideration of the impairment. This 

consideration is also manifest in his questioning of the 

vocational expert (Tr. 218) (“Manipulative limitations, reaching 

to include overhead, frequent bilateral, handling, fingering 

left only”). 

Plaintiff also asserts that the ALJ failed to consider her 

asthma, citing a single reference to chronic anxiety in medical 

records provided by West Alabama Mental Health on November 9, 

2012 (Doc. 14, p. 4; see Tr. 591). The Court notes, though, 

that the reference cited was self-reported by Plaintiff to the 

medical source; the Court finds no corresponding diagnosis by 

that source (see Tr. 597-98). The Court further notes that 

other medical evidence, within a close range of time, shows no 

finding of anxiety (see Tr. 610-12 (no mention of anxiety on May 

22, 2012); Tr. 605 (“no depression, no anxiety, no agitation” on 

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 15 of 21
16

September 17, 2012); and Tr. 527-32 (though Tate asserts 

anxiety, no diagnosis regarding it was made on May 20, 2013)). 

In spite of Plaintiff’s failure to point to medical 

evidence supporting a diagnosis of anxiety, the Court notes that 

the ALJ included the following restrictions in his RFC 

determination:

The claimant can interact appropriately with 

supervisors but this should be casual and 

non-confrontational. The claimant can 

interact appropriately with co-workers but 

this should be casual and non-confrontational. The claimant can interact appropriately to customers/general public but this 

should be casual and non-confrontational. 

The claimant can respond appropriately to 

work pressures in a usual work setting. The 

claimant can respond appropriately to 

changes in a routine work setting but 

changes should be infrequent and gradually 

introduced. The claimant can use judgment 

in simple one and two-step work related 

decisions. The claimant can occasionally 

use judgment in detailed or complex work 

related decisions. The claimant can 

understand, remember and carry out simple 

one and two-step instructions. The claimant 

can occasionally understand, remember and 

carry out detailed or complex instructions.

(Tr. 255). These limitations clearly indicate an accommodation 

to Tate’s assertions of anxiety.

Plaintiff also asserts that the ALJ failed to consider her 

morbid obesity in his RFC assessment (Doc. 14, pp. 5-6). The 

record shows that the ALJ specifically addressed her obesity, 

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 16 of 21
17

citing Social Security Ruling 02-1p, in finding that “the 

composite available medical evidence of record does not reveal 

that this impairment has otherwise reduced the functional 

limitations and restrictions” (Tr. 262). In spite of her 

assertion, Tate does not cite any medical opinion suggesting 

that her obesity limits her in any way. The Court notes that 

the fact of Plaintiff’s obesity is insufficient, in and of 

itself, to demonstrate any restrictions attributable thereto. 

The Court has considered Tate’s various assertions related 

to her claim that the ALJ’s RFC is not supported by the 

evidence, but finds no merit in any of them.

Plaintiff’s final claim is that the Appeals Council did not 

properly review newly-submitted evidence (Doc. 14, pp. 6-7). 

The evidence shows that Tate submitted 183 pages of new evidence 

to the Appeals Council (Tr. Index 1); while some of it was 

admitted for consideration (see Tr. 28), the bulk of it was 

denied as providing no basis for changing the ALJ’s decision 

(Tr. 25). The Court will review only that evidence specifically 

cited by Plaintiff in her brief.

It should be noted that "[a] reviewing court is limited to 

[the certified] record [of all of the evidence formally 

considered by the Secretary] in examining the evidence." Cherry 

v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 1186, 1193 (11th Cir. 1985). However, “new 

evidence first submitted to the Appeals Council is part of the 

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 17 of 21
18

administrative record that goes to the district court for review 

when the Appeals Council accepts the case for review as well as 

when the Council denies review.” Keeton v. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 21 F.3d 1064, 1067 (11th Cir. 1994). Under 

Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 496 

F.3d 1253, 1264 (11th Cir. 2007), district courts are instructed 

to consider, if such a claim is made, whether the Appeals 

Council properly considered the newly-submitted evidence in 

light of the ALJ’s decision. To make that determination, the 

Court considers whether the claimant “establish[ed] that: (1) 

there is new, noncumulative evidence; (2) the evidence is 

'material,' that is, relevant and probative so that there is a 

reasonable possibility that it would change the administrative 

result, and (3) there is good cause for the failure to submit 

the evidence at the administrative level." Caulder v. Bowen, 

791 F.2d 872, 877 (11th Cir. 1986).

Tate first points to a clinical assessment of pain and a 

physical medical source statement, both dated October 27, 2014, 

completed by Dr. Travis, her treating physician (Tr. 62-66). 

The Appeals Council rejected both forms, finding that they, as 

they were completed more than one year after the ALJ’s decision, 

came too late (Tr. 25). Plaintiff argues that the Doctor had 

indicated that the information provided regarding Tate’s 

abilities had been in effect for over a year (Doc. 14, p. 7; cf.

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 18 of 21
19

Tr. 66). While Plaintiff’s argument is correct as to the 

physical abilities form, no such assertion is made in the pain 

form; therefore, it will not be considered herein as the Court 

finds it irrelevant to the period of time under consideration.

In the medical source statement, Travis said that Plaintiff 

could sit for one hour, and stand and walk, each, for ten 

minutes at a time; she could sit for four hours and stand and 

walk, each, for one hour during an eight-hour day (Tr. 64-66). 

Tate could frequently lift and carry up to ten pounds and 

twenty-five pounds occasionally. Plaintiff could use her hands 

for simple grasping continuously, pushing and pulling of arm 

controls occasionally, and fine manipulation frequently; she 

could use her feet for foot controls occasionally. Travis 

indicated that Plaintiff was able to stoop, crouch, kneel, 

crawl, climb, and balance occasionally, but could continuously 

reach overhead.

In comparing Dr. Travis’s proposed limitations for Tate 

with the ALJ’s RFC determination, the Court finds little 

substantive difference. They both agreed that she could stand 

and walk, each, for one hour a workday; while the Doctor limited 

Plaintiff to sitting for only four hours, the ALJ determined 

that six hours was the correct amount. Although Travis found 

Plaintiff able to balance only occasionally, the ALJ indicated 

this ability could be performed frequently. 

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 19 of 21
20

The Court finds no error in rejecting Travis’s submitted 

physical abilities form, noting that her medical records provide 

no support for any of her conclusions as her medical records 

provide no evidence of such limitations (see Tr. 610-12, 677-

80). Furthermore, the reports of Drs. Givhan (Tr. 475-94), 

Thompson (Tr. 614-44), and Robidoux (Tr. 527-32) fully support 

the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Tate has also argued that the Appeals Council improperly 

rejected the evidence submitted by Dr. Thompson at the 

University Orthopedic Clinic from November 21, 2013 as it rebuts 

assumptions made by Dr. Robidoux and adopted by the ALJ (Doc. 

14, p. 7; cf. Tr. 163-66). The Court notes that, in that 

report, Dr. Thompson noted Plaintiff was doing well overall, had 

no complaints of instability, but did have complaints of 

constant, dull left knee pain (Tr. 163). However, the record 

indicates that Tate’s previous complaints involved her right 

knee—not the left one being discussed in these records; in fact, 

the Court found no evidence of left knee problems in the record 

before this note. In any event, x-rays showed “very mild 

degenerative changes” (Tr. 165); the exam demonstrated normal,

painful, active ROM. The Court finds substantial support for 

the Appeals Council’s decision that this evidence would not have 

changed the ALJ’s decision. Plaintiff’s claim otherwise is 

without merit.

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 20 of 21
21

Tate has raised two different claims in bringing this 

action. Both are without merit. Upon consideration of the 

entire record, the Court finds "such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion." Perales, 402 U.S. at 401. Therefore, it is 

ORDERED that the Secretary's decision be AFFIRMED, see 

Fortenberry v. Harris, 612 F.2d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1980), and 

that this action be DISMISSED. Judgment will be entered by 

separate Order. 

DONE this 27th day of August, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00139-M Document 21 Filed 08/27/15 Page 21 of 21