Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00291/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00291-0/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)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELLA W. FIELDS, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. :

 : CIVIL ACTION 14-0291-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 which denied claims for disability insurance benefits and 

Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter SSI) (Docs. 1, 13). 

The parties filed written consent and this action has been 

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all 

proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 18). Oral 

argument was waived (Doc. 19). Upon consideration of 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 2:14-cv-00291-M Document 20 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 9
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). The 

substantial evidence test 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, Fields was 

forty-eight years old, had a high school education1 (Tr. 189), 

and had previous work experience as an internal combustion 

engine assembler helper, front desk receptionist, and sales 

representative (see Tr. 29). In claiming benefits, Plaintiff 

alleges disability due to cervical disc disease with 

cervicalgia, epicondylitis, major depressive disorder, pain 

disorder, and personality disorder (Tr. 21; see also Doc. 13 

Fact Sheet).

The Plaintiff filed protective applications for disability 

benefits and SSI on April 5, 2011 (Tr. 116-28; see also Tr. 18). 

Benefits were denied following a hearing by an Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ) who determined that although Fields was unable 

																																																							 1Error!	Main	Document	Only.Plaintiff stated on a Social Security 

Administration form that she had received a Graduate Equivalency 

Degree (Tr. 189). 

Case 2:14-cv-00291-M Document 20 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 9
3

to perform her past relevant work, she was capable of performing 

specified light exertion jobs (Tr. 18-31). Plaintiff requested 

review of the hearing decision (Tr. 9-12) by the Appeals 

Council, but it was denied (Tr. 1-5).

In bringing this action, Fields claims that the opinion of 

the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, 

Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) The ALJ did not properly 

consider the evidence rendered by a consultative Psychologist; 

and (2) the ALJ did not properly develop the record (Doc. 13). 

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

The relevant evidence of record follows.2 

On July 13, 2011, Psychologist Nina E. Tocci examined 

Fields for a psychological evaluation at the request of the 

Social Security Administration (hereinafter SSA) (Tr. 423-47). 

When Tocci asked Plaintiff her reason for seeking disability, 

she responded by stating: “‘My arms, wrist, neck, back [sic] my 

whole body just aches;’” she denied having ever received 

treatment for mental health issues (Tr. 423). The Psychologist 

noted uncontrollable crying at times; affect was appropriate 

while her mood was not good. Plaintiff was oriented in four 

spheres, had focused attention and concentration, and 

demonstrated a fair fund of information and comprehension; 

																																																							 2

Plaintiff’s claims require the Court to evaluate only evidence 

concerning her mental impairments.

Case 2:14-cv-00291-M Document 20 Filed 01/21/15 Page 3 of 9
4

thought content was logical and organized. Fields had some 

insight into her behavior and evinced fair social judgment; 

Tocci indicated that she was functioning within the average 

range of intellectual ability. The Psychologist’s impression 

was Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent Pain Disorder, and 

Personality Disorder, NOS; she indicated that the prognosis was 

poor. In summarizing her findings, Tocci stated as follows:

Currently she experiences chronic pain, 

crying spells, feelings of worthlessness, 

isolation, cognitive clouding, impaired 

appetite and sleep. She would benefit from 

intensive psychotherapy with a psychologist. 

With appropriate and intensive therapy she 

could also benefit from referral to Adult 

Vocational Rehabilitation for career 

retraining and employment support. She 

should be re-evaluated after a year of 

psychotherapy to determine her emotional 

stability and work suitability. Currently, 

she would have difficulty remembering, 

learning, performing, and completing tasks 

to specification in a timely manner.

(Tr. 426).

On July 25, 2011, Joanna Koulianos, a non-examining State 

Psychologist reviewed the record medical evidence and completed 

a Psychiatric Review Technique form in which she found that 

Fields had a Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Pain 

Disorder, and a Personality Disorder, NOS (Tr. 428-41). The 

Psychologist determined that Plaintiff suffered mild restriction 

of activities of daily living, moderate difficulties in 

Case 2:14-cv-00291-M Document 20 Filed 01/21/15 Page 4 of 9
5

maintaining social functioning, and moderate difficulties in 

maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace. Psychologist 

Koulianos also completed a mental residual functional capacity 

assessment in which she indicated that Fields was moderately 

limited in her ability to do the following: understand, 

remember, and carry out detailed instructions; maintain 

attention and concentration for extended periods; interact 

appropriately with the general public; accept instructions and 

respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors; and respond 

appropriately to changes in the work setting (Tr. 442-45). The 

Psychologist went on to indicate that Fields could understand, 

remember, and carry out short, simple instructions and could 

concentrate for two-hour periods (Tr. 444). 

This concludes the relevant evidence of record.

In bringing this action, Fields first claims that the ALJ 

did not properly consider the evidence rendered by a 

consultative Psychologist; Plaintiff references the exam by 

Psychologist Tocci (Doc 13, pp. 4-6). The Court notes that 

"although the opinion of an examining physician is generally 

entitled to more weight than the opinion of a non-examining 

physician, the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any 

physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion." 

Case 2:14-cv-00291-M Document 20 Filed 01/21/15 Page 5 of 9
6

Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981);3 see 

also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (2014). The Court further notes that 

the ALJ is required to "state specifically the weight accorded 

to each item of evidence and why he reached that decision." 

Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981). Social 

security regulations provide the following instruction:

It is not sufficient for the 

adjudicator to make a single, conclusory 

statement that “the individual's allegations 

have been considered” or that “the 

allegations are (or are not) credible.” It 

is also not enough for the adjudicator 

simply to recite the factors that are 

described in the regulations for evaluating 

symptoms. The determination or decision 

must contain specific reasons for the 

finding on credibility, supported by the 

evidence in the case record, and must be 

sufficiently specific to make clear to the 

individual and to any subsequent reviewers 

the weight the adjudicator gave to the 

individual's statements and the reasons for 

that weight.

SSR 96-7p (Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: 

Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the 

Credibility of an Individual’s Statements).

In his determination, the ALJ summarized all of the medical 

evidence before stating the value he gave that evidence (Tr. 20-

																																																							

					 3The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc decision Bonner v. City of 

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), adopted as precedent 

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 

1981.

Case 2:14-cv-00291-M Document 20 Filed 01/21/15 Page 6 of 9
7

29). He discounted Fields’s testimony, finding that she was not 

a credible witness (Tr. 25, 28-29), a finding that goes 

unchallenged in this action. The ALJ gave Psychologist Tocci’s 

opinions little weight, stating two particular reasons:

First, [the] opinion lacks specificity as to 

the Claimant’s actual functional 

limitations; it does not expound on whether 

“would have difficulty” means the Claimant 

has mild, moderate, or marked limitations in 

these areas and whether she is otherwise 

employable. Second, Dr. Tocci’s opinion is 

contrary to the record demonstrating no 

current psychological or psychiatric 

treatment. The Claimant testified she takes 

no depression or anxiety medication. The 

claimant testified she has sought no 

inpatient care. She is aware of low-cost/

no-cost mental health clinic in her area, 

yet she has chosen not to seek treatment.

(Tr. 27). The ALJ gave Psychologist Koulianos’s opinions 

significant weight (Tr. 26-27).

The Court finds substantial support for the ALJ’s 

determination that Tocci’s opinions deserved little weight. 

While the ALJ correctly notes that the Psychologist did not set 

out precisely her conclusions regarding Fields’s abilities, the 

more relevant reason for rejecting them is the total lack of 

support for her conclusions anywhere else in the record. The 

only evidence of any mental health issues comes from Dr. Tocci

following a one-time examination. There is no evidence that 

Fields complained of mental health issues to her treating 

Case 2:14-cv-00291-M Document 20 Filed 01/21/15 Page 7 of 9
8

sources; there is also no evidence that she took medications or 

sought out any sort of treatment for these impairments (see Tr. 

57). Dr. Tocci’s conclusions cannot be reconciled with the 

failure of any other evidence.

Fields also claims that the ALJ did not properly develop 

the record. More specifically, Plaintiff argues that because 

the ALJ rejected Tocci’s opinions for failing to be specific, he 

should have sought additional evidence to complete the record 

(Doc. 13, pp. 7-8). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has 

required that "a full and fair record" be developed by the 

Administrative Law Judge even if the claimant is represented by 

counsel. Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 

1981). 

However, the Court notes that the burden is on the claimant 

to prove that she is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a) 

(2014); see also Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 

2001). Plaintiff has not met this burden. The Psychologist’s 

conclusions, considered in a light most favorable to Fields, do 

not support a finding of disability. Clarification from Tocci 

about the degree of difficulty Plaintiff experienced would have 

enjoyed no more support than is already in the record; the ALJ’s 

finding that Fields was able to work would have remained intact. 

This claim is of no merit.

Fields has raised two different claims in bringing this 

Case 2:14-cv-00291-M Document 20 Filed 01/21/15 Page 8 of 9
9

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 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 21st day of January, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00291-M Document 20 Filed 01/21/15 Page 9 of 9