Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-3_09-cv-01645/USCOURTS-alnd-3_09-cv-01645-0/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

NORTHWESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET COLLIER, )

)

Claimant, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. CV-09-S-1645-NW

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

Commissioner, Social Security )

Administration, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Claimant, Margaret Collier, commenced this action on August 18, 2009,

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”)

denying her claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. For the

reasons stated herein, the court finds that the Commissioner’s ruling is due to be

affirmed.

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

FILED

 2010 Jun-29 PM 03:51

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 3:09-cv-01645-CLS Document 11 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 6
(11th Cir. 1983).

Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s decision is neither supported by

substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legal standards. Specifically,

claimant asserts that the ALJ erred in evaluating the effect of claimant’s morbid

obesity on her functional limitations. Upon review of the record, the court concludes

that claimant’s contention is without merit.

Claimant is five feet, two inches tall. Her medical records indicate that, since

1

her alleged onset date of January 16, 2006, she has weighed anywhere from 309 to 2

321 pounds. There is no dispute that claimant is morbidly obese. Thus, the ALJ was 3

required to evaluate the effect of claimant’s obesity on her residual functional

capacity in accordance with Social SecurityRuling 02-1p, which statesthe following:

Obesity can cause limitation of function. The functions likely to

be limited depend on many factors, including where the excess weight

is carried. An individual may have limitations in any of the exertional

functions such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing,

and pulling. It may also affect ability to do postural functions, such as

climbing, balancing, stooping, and crouching. The ability to manipulate

may be affected by the presence of adipose (fatty) tissue in the hands

and fingers. The ability to tolerate extreme heat, humidity, or hazards

may also be affected.

The effects of obesity may not be obvious. For example, some

Tr. at 183. 1

See Tr. at 347 (noting claimant’s weight on June 29, 2006). 2

See Tr. at 219 (noting claimant’s weight on February 14, 2006). 3

2

Case 3:09-cv-01645-CLS Document 11 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 6
people with obesity also have sleep apnea. This can lead to drowsiness

and lack of mental clarity during the day. Obesity may also affect an

individual’s social functioning.

An assessment should also be made of the effect obesity has upon

the individual’s ability to perform routine movement and necessary

physical activity within the work environment. Individuals with obesity

may have problems with the ability to sustain a function over time. As

explained in SSR 96-8p (“Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual

Functional Capacity in Initial Claims”), our RFC assessments must

consider an individual’s maximum remaining ability to do sustained

work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing

basis. A “regular and continuing basis” means 8 hours a day, for 5 days

a week, or an equivalent work schedule. In cases involving obesity,

fatigue may affect the individual’s physical and mental ability to sustain

work activity. This may be particularly true in cases involving sleep

apnea.

The combined effects of obesity with other impairments may be

greater than might be expected without obesity. For example, someone

with obesity and arthritis affecting a weight-bearing joint may have

more pain and limitation than might be expected fromthe arthritis alone.

For a child applying for benefits under title XVI, we may evaluate

the functional consequences of obesity (either alone or in combination

with other impairments) to decide if the child’s impairment(s)

functionally equals the listings. For example, the functional limitations

imposed by obesity, by itself or in combination with another

impairment(s), may establish an extreme limitation in one domain of

functioning (e.g., Moving about and manipulating objects) or marked

limitationsin two domains(e.g., Moving about and manipulating objects

and Caring for yourself).

As with any other impairment, we will explain how we reached our

conclusions on whether obesity caused any physical or mental

limitations.

3

Case 3:09-cv-01645-CLS Document 11 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 6
SSR 02-1P, 2000 WL 628049, at *6-7. 

The ALJ noted obesity as one of claimant’s severe impairments, but concluded

4

that none of claimant’s impairments, either singly or in combination, wassufficiently

severe to satisfy any of the listings. The ALJ ultimately concluded that claimant had

5

the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light work. In 6

determining claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ consistently mentioned

claimant’s obesity. He also discussed SSR 02-1p in detail as follows: 7

The undersigned has considered Social Security Ruling 02-1p

involving evaluation of obesity. This ruling observes that obesity can

cause limitation of function and that an individual may have limitations

in any of the exertional functions such as sitting, standing, walking,

lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling. Obesity also may affect ability

to do postural functions, such as climbing, balancing, stooping, and

crouching. The ability to manipulate may be affected by the presence

of adipose (fatty) tissue in the hands and fingers. The ability to tolerate

extreme heat, humidity, or hazards may also be affected.

Social SecurityRuling 02-1p states an assessment should bemade

of the effect obesity has upon the individual’s ability to perform routine

movement and necessary physical activitywithin the work environment.

Individuals with obesity may have problems with the ability to sustain

a function over time. As explained in Social Security Ruling 96-8p

(“Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial

Claims”), our residual functional capacity assessment must consider an

individual’s maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities

Tr. at 21. 4

Tr. at 25. 5

Id. 6

Tr. at 27. 7

4

Case 3:09-cv-01645-CLS Document 11 Filed 06/29/10 Page 4 of 6
in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis. A

“regular and continuing basis” means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week,

or an equivalent work schedule. In casesinvolving obesity, fatigue may

affect the individual’s physical and mental ability to sustain work

activity. This may be particularly true in cases involving sleep apnea. 

The combined effects of obesity with other impairments may be greater

than might be expected without obesity. For example, someone with

obesity and arthritis affecting a weight-bearing joint may havemore pain

and limitation than might be expected from arthritis alone. The record

does not show that the claimant has a medically determinable

impairment with regard to weight-bearing joints. While the claimant did

have some complaints of aching in her bones all over in April 2006, she

admitted when she saw Dr. Lango in June 2006, after she had

discontinued taking Cipro she no longer had any of the achy discomfort

in her bones she had felt. The undersigned finds that the claimant’s

impairments, including obesity, do not restrict her ability to perform

routine movement and necessary physical activity within a light

exertional work environment. 

The claimant’s primary impairments appear to be her morbid

obesity and her continued smoking. At the hearing, the claimant alleged

that she had recently stopped smoking and that she did so in January

2007. This should improve the claimant’s functional abilities in regard

to fatigue and shortness of breath. Weight loss, even though it has been

recommended by her treating physicians, remains in the hands of the

claimant and it is a personal decision, should also result in a decrease in

her allegations of weakness and fatigue and further increase her

functional abilities in excess of that found in the above-stated residual

functional capacity.8

In light of this detailed analysis, the court simply cannot agree with claimant’s

argument that, “although the ALJ cited SSR 02–01p, and discussed its contents, he

Tr. at 28. 8

5

Case 3:09-cv-01645-CLS Document 11 Filed 06/29/10 Page 5 of 6
simply did not apply it to the facts of Ms. Collier’s case.” The court also finds,

9

despite claimant’s argument to the contrary, that the ALJ did consider the impact of

fatigue and sleep apnea on claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. The

ALJ’s finding that the combined effect of all of claimant’s impairments — including

obesity — did not prevent her from performing gainful work activity on a sustained

basis was supported by substantial evidence. 

Consistent with the foregoing, the court concludes the ALJ’s decision was

based upon substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable legal standards. 

Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Costs are taxed

against claimant. The Clerk is directed to close this file.

DONE this 29th day of June, 2010.

______________________________

United States District Judge

Doc. no. 8 (claimant’s brief), at 6. 9

6

Case 3:09-cv-01645-CLS Document 11 Filed 06/29/10 Page 6 of 6