Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00376/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00376-0/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 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

EVETTA FRAZIER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:14cv376-WC 

 ) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Evetta Frazier (“Plaintiff”) filed an application for supplemental security income 

under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). Her application was denied at the 

initial administrative level. Plaintiff then requested and received a hearing before an 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision in 

which he found Plaintiff not disabled from the application date of April 27, 2011, through 

the date of the decision. Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, which rejected her 

request for review of the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ’s decision consequently became the 

final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”).1

 See Chester v. 

Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). The case is now before the court for review 

 

1

 Pursuant to the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 

103-296, 108 Stat. 1464, the functions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to 

Social Security matters were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security. 

Case 1:14-cv-00376-WC Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 9
2 

under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties have consented to 

the conduct of all proceedings and entry of a final judgment by the undersigned United 

States Magistrate Judge. Pl.’s Consent to Jurisdiction (Doc. 10); Def.’s Consent to 

Jurisdiction (Doc. 9). Based on the court’s review of the record and the briefs of the 

parties, the court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), a person is entitled to benefits when the person is 

unable to 

engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to 

result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a 

continuous period of not less than 12 months. 

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).2

 To make this determination, the Commissioner employs a five-step, sequential 

evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2011). 

(1) Is the person presently unemployed? 

(2) Is the person’s impairment severe? 

(3) Does the person’s impairment meet or equal one of the specific 

impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 [the Listing of 

Impairments]? 

(4) Is the person unable to perform his or her former occupation? 

(5) Is the person unable to perform any other work within the economy? 

An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads either to the next 

question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative 

 

2

 A “physical or mental impairment” is one resulting from anatomical, physiological, or psychological 

abnormalities that are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic 

techniques. 

Case 1:14-cv-00376-WC Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 9
3 

answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of 

“not disabled.” 

McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986).3

 The burden of proof rests on a claimant through Step 4. See Phillips v. Barnhart, 

357 F.3d 1232, 1237-39 (11th Cir. 2004). A claimant establishes a prima facie case of 

qualifying disability once they have carried the burden of proof from Step 1 through Step 

4. At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner, who must then show there are a 

significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform. Id. 

 To perform the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s 

Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). Id. at 1238-39. The RFC is what the claimant is 

still able to do despite the claimant’s impairments and is based on all relevant medical 

and other evidence. Id. It may contain both exertional and nonexertional limitations. Id. 

at 1242-43. At the fifth step, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and 

work experience to determine if there are jobs available in the national economy the 

claimant can perform. Id. at 1239. To do this, the ALJ can either use the Medical 

Vocational Guidelines4

 (“grids”) or call a vocational expert (“VE”). Id. at 1239-40. 

 The grids allow the ALJ to consider factors such as age, confinement to sedentary 

or light work, inability to speak English, educational deficiencies, and lack of job 

 

3

 McDaniel is a supplemental security income case (SSI). The same sequence applies to disability 

insurance benefits. Cases arising under Title II are appropriately cited as authority in Title XVI cases. 

See, e.g., Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1981). 

4

 See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt. P, app. 2. 

Case 1:14-cv-00376-WC Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 9
4 

experience. Each factor can independently limit the number of jobs realistically available 

to an individual. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240. Combinations of these factors yield a 

statutorily-required finding of “Disabled” or “Not Disabled.” Id. 

 The court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is a limited one. This court 

must find the Commissioner’s decision conclusive if it is supported by substantial 

evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997). 

“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. It is such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); see also Crawford v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Even if the evidence 

preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings, [a reviewing court] must affirm if the 

decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.”). A reviewing court may not look 

only to those parts of the record which support the decision of the ALJ, but instead must 

view the record in its entirety and take account of evidence which detracts from the 

evidence relied on by the ALJ. Hillsman v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 1179 (11th Cir. 1986). 

[The court must] . . . scrutinize the record in its entirety to determine the 

reasonableness of the [Commissioner’s] . . . factual findings. . . . No 

similar presumption of validity attaches to the [Commissioner’s] . . . legal 

conclusions, including determination of the proper standards to be applied 

in evaluating claims. 

Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999 (11th Cir. 1987). 

Case 1:14-cv-00376-WC Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 4 of 9
5 

III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

 Plaintiff, who was forty-eight years old on the date the application was filed, has a 

tenth-grade education. Tr. 26. Following the administrative hearing, and employing the 

five-step process, the ALJ found at Step One that Plaintiff “has not engaged in substantial 

gainful activity since April 27, 2011, the application date.” Tr. 23. At Step Two, the 

ALJ found that Plaintiff suffers from the following severe impairments: “osteoarthritis of 

the knees and rheumatoid arthritis.” Id. At Step Three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff 

“does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically 

equals the severity of one of the listed impairments.” Id. Next, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff “has the [RFC] to perform the full range of sedentary work as defined in 20 

C.F.R. [§] 416.967(a).” Tr. 24. The ALJ concluded at Step Four that Plaintiff “is unable 

to perform any past relevant work.” Tr. 26. Finally, at Step Five, applying the grids, the 

ALJ determined that, “[c]onsidering [Plaintiff]’s age, education, work experience, and 

[RFC], there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that 

[Plaintiff] can perform.” Id. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff “has not 

been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from April 27, 2011, the 

date the application was filed.” Tr. 27. 

IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

 Plaintiff presents the following issues for this court’s consideration in review of 

the ALJ’s decision: (1)Whether the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial 

Case 1:14-cv-00376-WC Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 5 of 9
6 

evidence; and (2) Whether the ALJ erred in his application of the Medical-Vocational 

Guidelines. Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 12) at 6. Because the court determines the first issue requires 

remand for further proceedings, the court declines to address the second issue at this time. 

V. DISCUSSION

 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s RFC finding that Plaintiff is capable of performing 

the full range of sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence because “the 

medical evidence of record[, including one source whose opinion the ALJ assigned 

“significant” weight,] indicated that [Plaintiff] suffers from additional limitations which 

are inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding.” Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 12) at 6. 

 Plaintiff points the court to the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Karen 

Kinsell, M.D., whose opinion the ALJ afforded “significant weight.” Id. at 7. The ALJ 

discussed Dr. Kinsell’s opinion as follows: 

In terms of [Plaintiff]’s alleged claims of an inability to work due to 

arthritis, the [ALJ] gives significant weight to the opinion of Karen Kinsell, 

M.D., her treating physician. The [ALJ] finds it extremely significant that 

Dr. Kinsell found [Plaintiff can] sit for 6 hours during an 8-hour day and 

stand and walk for one hour each during an 8-hour day. She found 

[Plaintiff] can frequently lift up to 10 pounds and occasionally carry up to 

10 pounds. She found [Plaintiff] can use her hands for simple grasping and 

fine manipulation. The [ALJ] notes that Dr. Kinsell did indicate [Plaintiff] 

is unable to squat, crawl or climb but there is no evidence to indicate those 

restrictions would prevent her from performing sedentary work activity 

(Exhibits 3-F, 7-F and 8- F). 

Tr. 24. 

Case 1:14-cv-00376-WC Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 6 of 9
7 

However, as Plaintiff points out, the ALJ’s summary does not encompass the 

entirety of Dr. Kinsell’s opinion. Plaintiff highlights that “the ALJ’s decision is silent . . . 

as to Dr. Kinsell’s [opinion that Plaintiff is limited] to occasional bending and reaching 

and no use of the hands for repetitive actions such as the pushing and pulling of arm 

controls.” Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 12) at 7-8. Plaintiff asserts that “the most meaningful flaw” in 

the ALJ’s decision is the “failure to address the reaching restrictions set forth by Dr. 

Kinsell.” Id. at 8. “As the ALJ fails to discuss this clearly important limitation from a 

medical source assigned ‘significant weight,’ it is impossible to determine whether the 

ALJ merely overlooked this limitation or simply ignored it.” Id. at 9-10. 

The court agrees. The ALJ’s decision leaves the court unable to determine if the 

ALJ considered Dr. Kinsell’s opinion that Plaintiff’s ability to reach is limited but found 

it incredible, or if the ALJ overlooked the limitation entirely. While it is true that the 

description of sedentary work provided in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967 does not explicitly require 

the ability to reach, it is clear that a reaching limitation would significantly limit one’s 

employment options. This point is addressed in Social Security Ruling 85-15, which 

states as follows: 

Reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling require progressively finer usage 

of the upper extremities to perform work-related activities. Reaching 

(extending the hands and arms in any direction) and handling (seizing, 

holding, grasping, turning or otherwise working primarily with the whole 

hand or hands) are activities required in almost all jobs. Significant 

limitations of reaching or handling, therefore, may eliminate a large 

number of occupations a person could otherwise do. 

Case 1:14-cv-00376-WC Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 7 of 9
8 

SSR 85-15 (emphasis added). 

 In response to Plaintiff’s claims, the Commissioner asserts that “Plaintiff has 

misunderstood the ALJ’s decision,” because “Plaintiff seems to assume that because the 

ALJ has accorded significant weight to [Dr. Kinsell’s] opinion . . . [,] the ALJ has 

accepted and adopted each every single limitation [the doctor] listed,” when “[i]n fact, 

the ALJ did not adopt [Dr. Kinsell’s] assessment . . . or give it controlling weight, but 

gave it ‘significant weight’ in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.” Def.’s Br. (Doc. 13) at 8. 

 While the Commissioner is correct that the ALJ was not required to adopt each 

piece of Dr. Kinsell’s opinion, the ALJ did have a duty to express why he rejected, if he 

so did, portions of Dr. Kinsell’s opinion when he simultaneously found the overall 

opinion to be entitled to significant weight. See McCloud v. Barnhart, 166 F. App’x 410, 

419 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The ALJ is required . . . to state with particularity the weight he 

gives to different medical opinions and the reasons why.”); see also Butler v. Barnhart, 

353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (court unable to identify substantial evidence supporting 

the ALJ’s RFC assessment that plaintiff can perform sedentary work when ALJ failed to 

mention specific portions of the treating physician’s opinion, including that plaintiff was 

unable to reach, lift, or stoop). 

Without an explanation for why some of Dr. Kinsell’s limitations were addressed 

by the ALJ and some were not, the court is unable to conduct a full review of the ALJ’s 

decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. On remand, the 

Case 1:14-cv-00376-WC Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 8 of 9
9 

ALJ should reevaluate Dr. Kinsell’s opinion in its entirety and, if the ALJ finds portions 

of the opinion to be entitled to less-than-significant weight, express why those portions 

are rejected. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED 

and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner to reevaluate Dr. Kinsell’s opinion, 

specifically that Plaintiff is limited in her ability to reach, and, if the ALJ rejects portions 

of the opinion, he must express why those portions are rejected. 

A separate judgment will issue. 

Done this 5th day of May, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00376-WC Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 9 of 9