Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00488/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00488-0/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 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL WAYNE PEPPERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV. ACT. NO. 2:13cv488-TFM

 (WO)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Michael Wayne Peppers (“Peppers”) applied for disability insurance 

benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. '' 401 et seq., alleging 

that he is unable to work because of a disability. His application was denied at the initial 

administrative level. The plaintiff then requested and received a hearing before an 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Following the hearing on June 16, 2010, the ALJ 

concluded that Peppers was not under a “disability” as defined in the Social Security Act. 

The ALJ, therefore, denied the plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Peppers submitted a request 

for review to the Appeals Council. Upon considering Peppers’ request, the Appeals 

Council vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded the case with directions that the ALJ 

should conduct further proceedings and issue a new decision. (R. 117-19). A 

supplemental hearing was conducted on December 1, 2011. (R. 72-98). Following this 

proceeding, the ALJ denied the claim. The Appeals Council rejected a subsequent 

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 12
2

request for review. Consequently, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”).1See Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 

129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to 

entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge. The case is now before 

the court for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1631(c)(3). Based on the 

court’s review of the record in this case and the parties’ briefs, the court concludes that 

the Commissioner’s decision should be AFFIRMED.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

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

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

(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?

(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 

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

“not disabled.”

 

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 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 12
3

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

The standard of 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). A reviewing court may 

not look only to those parts of the record which supports 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).

III. THE ISSUES

A. Introduction

Peppers was 64 years old at the time of the December 1, 2011, hearing before the 

ALJ. (R. 72, 76). He completed sixth grade and has a general equivalency diploma. (R. 

76). Peppers has prior work experience as a flooring installer. (R. 77). Peppers alleges 

 

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

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 3 of 12
4

that he became disabled on February 10, 2006, due to back pain, arthritis, spores in his 

lungs, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), headaches, and anxiety attacks. 

(R. 78-79, 280). After the hearing on December 1, 2011, the ALJ found that Peppers

suffers from COPD, degenerative disc disease, hypertension, panic disorder, and anxiety 

disorder. (R. 17). The ALJ found that Peppers is unable to perform his past relevant 

work, but that he retains the residual functional capacity to perform light work with the 

following limitations:

[C]laimant can frequently lift and carry up to ten pounds, and occasionally 

lift and carry eleven to twenty pounds. Claimant can sit for three hours at 

one time, and stand/walk for one hour at one time. Claimant is able to sit 

for six hours during an eight-hour workday, and stand/walk two hours 

during an eight-hour workday. Claimant needs to be able to alternate 

between sitting and standing to relieve pain and/or discomfort. Claimant 

can frequently reach in all directions, handle, finger, and feel, and 

occasionally push and pull with his dominant right hand. Claimant can 

frequently operate foot controls bilaterally. Claimant can never climb stairs 

and ramps, but can occasionally climb ladders and scaffolds, balance, 

stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. Claimant cannot tolerate exposure to 

unprotected heights, humidity, wetness, dust, odors, fumes, pulmonary 

irritants, and extreme heat and cold. Claimant can occasionally tolerate 

exposure to moving mechanical parts, operation of a motor vehicle, 

vibrations, and moderate (office) noise. Claimant’s work should be limited 

to unskilled work with no more than frequent interaction with coworkers 

and supervisors, and no more than occasional contact with the general 

public.

(R. 20). Testimony from a vocational expert led the ALJ to conclude that a significant 

number of jobs exist in the national economy that Peppers can perform, including work 

as a mail clerk, stock checker, and electric worker. (R. 36). Accordingly, the ALJ 

concluded that Peppers is not disabled. (R. 37).

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 4 of 12
5

B. Plaintiff’s Claim

Peppers’ sole issue for the Court’s consideration is whether the “ALJ’s RFC 

findings are not based on substantial evidence because the evidence, including [the] 

treating physician[ s] opinion supports a favorable finding under the [Medical Vocational 

Rules] at the sedentary level.” (Doc. No. 13, Pl’s Br., p. 1.) 

IV. DISCUSSION

Peppers asserts that the ALJ’s determination that he has the residual functional 

capacity to perform light work with limitations is not supported by substantial evidence. 

Specifically, Peppers argues that the ALJ should have found that he has the residual 

functional capacity to perform no more than sedentary work because the opinion of Dr. 

Bipin Kumar, his treating physician, “provides for an eight hour work day but . . . at best 

would allow for a range of sedentary work based on the exertional restriction of claimant 

being on his feet for only an occasional basis or two hours in an eight hour day pursuant 

to SSR 83-10.” (Pl’s Br., pp. 7, 9). In addition, he contends that the medical expert at the 

hearing failed to provide a function-by-function analysis as required under SSR 96-8p. 

He also argues that a finding of disabled is mandated by Rule 201.14 of the Medical 

Vocational Guidelines because he is closely approaching advanced age, is able to 

perform no more than “sedentary [work] at best,” and has mental work-related 

restrictions. (Id., pp. 9-10). 

An ALJ is required to independently assess a claimant’s residual functional 

capacity “based upon all of the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will 

assess your residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other 

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 5 of 12
6

evidence.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c) (“If your case is at the administrative law judge 

hearing level. . ., the administrative law judge . . . is responsible for assessing your 

residual functional capacity.”). See also Lewis, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997) 

(“The residual functional capacity is an assessment, based upon all of the relevant 

evidence, of a claimant’s remaining ability to do work despite his impairments.”). 

“Residual functional capacity, or RFC, is a medical assessment of what the claimant can 

do in a work setting despite any mental, physical or environmental limitations caused by 

the claimant’s impairments and related symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a).” Peeler v. 

Astrue, 400 Fed. Appx. 492, 494 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2010). 

The ALJ’s determination that Peppers retains the residual functional capacity to 

perform light work is supported by substantial evidence, including the opinions of his 

treating physician and the consultative physicians. In March 2009, Dr. Hirenkumar Jani, 

a consultative physician, conducted an examination of Peppers. (R. 385-388). Dr. Jani 

diagnosed Peppers as suffering from shortness of breath due to underlying COPD and 

chronic neck and back pain. (R. 388). Dr. Jani found no restrictions posturally, 

manipulatively, or environmentally. (R. 388). He recommended that “[a]s far as walking 

and standing and lifting and carrying [is] concerned [Peppers] needs to be further 

evaluated in terms of shortness of breath.” (R. 388). 

In May 2010, Peppers’ treating physician, Dr. Kumar, completed a Physical 

Capacities Evaluation, in which he assessed that Peppers is able to sit for two hours and 

walk for one hour at a time; sit for four hours and stand/walk for two hours in an eighthour workday; take ten-minute breaks every two hours; continuously lift up to ten pounds 

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 6 of 12
7

and carry up to five founds; frequently lift eleven to twenty pounds; occasionally lift 

twenty-one to twenty-five pounds; occasionally carry eleven to twenty pounds; use his 

hands and feet for repetitive motions; occasionally bed, squat, and reach; and moderate 

exposure to dust, fumes, and gases. (R. 26). In addition, Dr. Kumar found that Peppers’ 

pain is present to such an extent as to be distracting to adequate performance of daily 

activities or work and that physical activity such as walking, standing, or bending 

increase his pain to such a degree as to cause distraction or total abandonment from tasks. 

(Id.). 

After the Appeals Council entered its June 13, 2011 opinion remanding the ALJ’s 

decision to deny benefits and directing the ALJ to obtain an updated physical consultative 

examination by a medical expert, such as an internist or specialist, the ALJ ordered 

additional consultative examinations. On August 11, 2011, Dr. Oluyinka Adediji, an 

internist, conducted an evaluation. (R. 521). Dr. Adediji’s diagnostic assessment was 

uncontrolled hypertension, COPD/emphysema, chronic back and neck pain, and 

situational depression. (R. 525). Dr. Adediji found that Peppers is able to frequently lift 

up to ten pounds and carry up to twenty pounds; stand and walk no more than one hour 

without interruption; stand and walk no more than two hours in an eight-hour workday; 

sit no more than three hours without interruption; sit no more than six hours during an 

eight-hour workday; frequently use his dominant right hand for reaching, handling, 

fingering, and feeling; occasionally push or pull; frequently operate foot controls; and 

occasionally climb ladders or scaffolds, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. (R. 

516-519). He also found that Peppers should never climb stairs or ramps and should 

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 7 of 12
8

avoid unprotected heights, humidity, wetness, dust, odors, pulmonary irritants, and 

temperature extremes. (R. 519-520). 

At the December 1, 2011 hearing, Dr. James Anderson, a medical expert, testified 

that his review of the medical records indicates that Peppers suffers from severe 

impairments of hypertension, chronic chest pain due to a chronic obstructive pulmonary 

emphysema and smoker’s bronchitis and chronic spinal pain with normal x-rays. (R. 90).

Dr. Anderson identified inconsistencies between Dr. Kumar’s May 2010 opinion 

regarding untreated back pain and the lack of objective medical evidence to support the 

treating physician’s findings. (R. 89). He also testified that a pulmonary function test 

indicates that Peppers’ ability to work would not be restricted significantly. (Id). Dr. 

Anderson assessed that Peppers retains the residual functional capacity to perform light 

work with the following restrictions:

Because of his chronic smoker’s bronchitis and emphysema, I would 

suggest that he not be exposed to concentrated dust, fumes, and allergens of 

that sort. Because of the subjective complaint of lower back and neck pain, 

I would suggest that a sit/stand option would be appropriate for his light 

work activity.

(R. 90). 

On December 15, 2011, Dr. Kumar completed a second Physical Capacities 

Evaluation. (R. 14). The treating physician assessed that Peppers is able to sit for six 

hours and stand and/or walk two hours during an eight-hour workday; carry twenty 

pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; bend occasionally; and work around dust, 

allergens, and fumes. (R. 543). In addition, Dr. Kumar noted that Peppers’ pain “is 

present, but does not prevent functioning in everyday activities or work.” (R. 544). He 

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 8 of 12
9

found, however, that physical activity, such as prolonged sitting, walking or standing will 

“[g]realty increase[] pain, and to such a degree as to cause distraction from tasks or total 

abandonment of tasks.” (Id.). Nonetheless, he noted that Peppers does not have “an 

underlying medical condition [which is] consistent with the pain he . . . experiences.” (R. 

545). 

To the extent Peppers argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by 

substantial evidence because the ALJ did not specify whether he relied on Dr. Kumar’s 

May 2010 opinion or his December 2011 opinion when affording great weight to his 

opinion, his argument is unavailing. The ALJ should not be required to specify the 

obvious. After the Appeals Council remanded the case, Dr. Kumar provided a second 

Physical Capacities Evaluation which was less favorable to Peppers’ case. It is clear that 

the ALJ relied on this second opinion when he gave “great weight to Dr. Kumar’s 

opinion,” specifically finding that the “opinion is supported by medical signs and 

findings and is consistent with the record as a whole.” (R. 34). The ALJ’s residual 

functional capacity finding that Peppers retains the residual functional capacity to 

perform light work with restrictions mimics the findings in Dr. Kumar’s second opinion 

indicating that Peppers is able to sit for six hours and stand and/or walk two hours during 

an eight-hour workday, carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, and 

bend occasionally. (R. 20, 544). 

In addition, Peppers asserts that the ALJ erred in affording great weight to the 

opinion of Dr. Anderson because the medical expert did not provide a function-byfunction assessment of his work-related abilities in accordance with SSR 96-8p. A 

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 9 of 12
10

medical expert is not required to perform such an analysis. Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 

however, does require that the ALJ consider all the evidence and assess the plaintiff’s 

ability to do work-related activities, including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, 

pushing, and pulling. See SSR 96-8p at *3, *5 (1996). SSR 96-8p provides that, at Step 

4 of the sequential evaluation, the RFC should not be expressed in terms of the exertional 

categories, such as “sedentary,” “light,” “medium,” or “heavy.” Id. 

The court finds that the ALJ adequately evaluated Peppers’ functional limitations 

and restrictions in his decision. The ALJ found that Peppers “has the residual functional 

capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). . . .” The Regulation 

provides: 

Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with 

frequent lifting or carrying of objects weight up to 10 pounds. Even though 

the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires 

a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the 

time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be 

considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light work, you 

must have the ability to do substantially all of these activities. If someone 

can do light work, we determine that he or she can also do sedentary work, 

unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or 

inability to sit for long periods of time. 

Social security rulings do not have the force and effect of statutes or regulations. 

See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 636 (9th Cir. 2007); Fagan v. Astrue, 231 Fed. Appx. 

835, 837 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2007); Walker v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 856 F.2d 

1352, 1356 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the Rulings are generally entitled to deference. 

Fagan, 231 Fed. Appx. at 837. In this case, the ALJ gave sufficient deference to the 

Ruling when making his residual functional capacity finding. SSR 96-8p does not 

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 10 of 12
11

require an ALJ to mechanically assess functions for which there is no credible evidence 

of impairment. The purpose of the function-by-function assessment is to insure that the 

ALJ does not overlook an important restriction and thereby incorrectly classify the 

individual’s capacity for work. See SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *4. An ALJ need 

not provide superfluous analysis of irrelevant limitations or relevant limitations about 

which there is no conflicting medical evidence. See Depover v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 563, 

576-68 (8th Cir. 2003). The ALJ conducted a thorough analysis of the testimony and 

considered all of the objective medical evidence in reaching his decision. 

Peppers also argues that the ALJ’s decision is erroneous because he would “ grid 

under MVR 201.14 even if he could perform the full range of sedentary work.” (Doc. No. 

13, Pl’s Br., p. 10). The problem with Peppers’ argument is that 201.14 is applicable to 

claimants with an RFC of sedentary work. In this case, substantial evidence supports the 

ALJ’s determination that Peppers has the residual functional capacity to perform light 

work with restrictions. Thus, Peppers’ claim that the ALJ erred by failing to consider his 

ability to perform sedentary work along with his age and mental work-related restrictions

at the time of the hearing is without merit. 

Pursuant to the substantial evidence standard, this court’s review is a limited one; 

the entire record must be scrutinized to determine the reasonableness of the ALJ’s 

findings. Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992). The ALJ evaluated all 

the evidence before her which led her to conclude that Peppers is able to perform light 

work with limitations. It is not the province of this court to reweigh evidence, make 

credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Instead the 

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 11 of 12
12

court reviews the record to determine if the decision reached is supported by substantial 

evidence. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 108, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence 

“is less than a preponderance, but rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable person 

would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. Given this standard of review, 

the court concludes that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment is consistent 

with the medical evidence as a whole. After a careful examination of the administrative 

record, the court concludes that substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the ALJ 

concerning Moseley’s residual functional capacity to perform light work with limitations. 

V. CONCLUSION

The court has carefully and independently reviewed the record and concludes that 

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff is not disabled. Thus, 

the court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial 

evidence. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be and is 

hereby AFFIRMED. 

DONE this 5th day of May, 2014.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00488-TFM Document 18 Filed 05/05/14 Page 12 of 12