Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_14-cv-01718/USCOURTS-alnd-7_14-cv-01718-0/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

WESTERN DIVISION

DERWIN HUBBARD,

Claimant,

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 7:14-CV-1718-CLS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Claimant, Derwin Hubbard, commenced this action on September 8, 2014,

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”),

and thereby denying his claim for a period of disability, disability insurance, and

supplemental security income 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

 2015 May-01 PM 03:57

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 13
(11th Cir. 1983).

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

substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legalstandards. Specifically,

claimant contends that the ALJ improperly considered the opinion of John Goff,

Ph.D., the consultative psychological examiner, and that he should have been found

to be disabled under Listing 12.05C, addressing intellectual disability.

Listing 12.05C states as follows:

Intellectual disability. Intellectual disabilityrefers to significantly

subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive

functioning initially manifested during the developmental period; i.e.,

the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before

age 22.

The required level of severity for this disorder is met when the

requirements in A, B, C, or D are satisfied.

. . . .

C. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through

70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional

and significant work-related limitation of function. . . .

20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, appx. 1, § 12.05 (listings) (italics in original, ellipses

supplied).1

1 Effective September 3, 2013, the Social Security

Administration replaced the term mental retardation with the term

intellectual disability as a listed impairment. Change in Terminology:

“Mental Retardation” to “Intellectual Disability,” 78 Fed. Reg.

46,499, 46,4501 (Aug. 1, 2013) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404,

subpt. P, app. 1). This change was made because “the term ‘mental

2

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 13
The ALJstated that “claimant does not have a valid verbal, performance, or full

scale IQ score of 60-through 70 . . . .”2 But he did not offer any explanation for that

finding, and the evidence does not support it. To the contrary, intelligence testing

conducted by Dr. John Goff, the consultative psychological examiner, resulted in a

full-scale IQ score of 65. There are no other contradictory scores in the record. 

Moreover, it cannot seriously be contested claimant has physical impairments that

impose significant work-related limitations of function. Indeed, the ALJ found that

claimant’s chronic sinusitis was a “severe impairment.”3

Even so, the ALJ also found that claimant did notsatisfy the prefatory criterion

of the Listing, i.e., “deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the

developmental period.” The court agrees with that conclusion and finds that it is

supported by substantial evidence of record. Claimant’s long work history, which

apparently ended for reasons unrelated to his level of mental functioning, along with

his ability to perform basic personal tasks like driving, paying bills, and performing

retardation’ has negative connotations,” and “has become offensive

to many people.” Id. at 46,499. But this change “d[id] not affect the

actual medical definition of the disorder or available programs or

services.” Id. at 49,500. 

Frame v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, – F. App’x – , 2015 WL 150733, *2 n.2

(11th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015) (alteration in original). Thus, even though the ALJ’s decision was “issued

before the change took effect,” this court, like the Eleventh Circuit panel in Frame, will “follow the

agency’s new nomenclature.” Id. at *2 n.2. 

2

 Tr. 21 (emphasis in original). 

3

 Tr. 19. 

3

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 13
self-care functions, indicate that he did not suffer from significant adaptive

limitations that manifested during the developmental period. See, e.g., Garrett v.

Astrue, 244 F. App’x 937, 939 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that the claimant’s ability

to cook simple meals, perform household chores, build model cars, attend church,

watch television, play cards, and walk in the mall were inconsistent with a finding of

significant impairment of adaptive functioning); Outlaw v. Barnhart, 197 F. App’x

825, 827 (11th Cir. 2006) (stating that the claimant’s “long work history in

semi-skilled positions and daily activities were inconsistent with his adultIQ scores,”

which were below 70); Humphries v. Barnhart, 183 F. App’x 887, 889 (11th Cir.

2006) (holding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that the

claimant did not have deficits in adaptive functioning when she worked in a school

cafeteria for 21 years and served as the manager for about 15 years). 

Claimant contends that the ALJ should have relied upon the assessment of Dr.

John Goff, the consultative psychological examiner, because Dr. Goff found that

claimant did experience deficits in adaptive functioning. Social Security regulations

provide that, in considering what weight to give any medical opinion (regardless of

whether it is from a treating or consultative physician), the Commissioner should

evaluate: the extent of the examining or treating relationship between the doctor and

patient; whether the doctor’s opinion can be supported by medical signs and

4

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 13
laboratory findings; whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; the

doctor’s specialization; and other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). See also

Wheeler v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 1073, 1075 (11th Cir. 1986) (“The weight afforded a

physician’s conclusory statements depends upon the extent to which they are

supported by clinical or laboratory findings and are consistent with other evidence as

to claimant’s impairments.”). 

Dr. Goff examined claimant on March 22, 2012, upon referral by his attorney,

and reviewed claimant’s medical records, although they were “very sparse.”4 He also

reviewed claimant’s work history report, and stated: 

I do not think [claimant] knew how to fill out the form and I really

cannot read it particularly. Under the job title he has written light foot

encon twice and then buddy and hou-encom. [sic] Then he has written

the word “lunnutt” [sic] repeatedly, 7 times and he has written the word

“turner” as his job title. Sometimes he has written the word “turnne”

[sic].

5

During the examination, claimantreported having graduated fromhigh school,

but he did not know whether he received a regular diploma or a certificate of

attendance. Claimant did recall repeating the seventh grade and being enrolled in

special education classes “throughout the majority of his academic career.”6

Claimant’s work history consisted primarily of digging tunnels, and Dr. Goff

4

 Tr. 233.

5

Id. (alterations supplied). 

6

 Tr. 234. 

5

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 13
surmised that when claimant wrote “turner” and “turnne” on the work history report,

he likely intended to write “tunnel” instead. Claimant reported working as a tunnel

digger for the same company until 2008, when the work “ran out.”7

Claimant denied any depression, delusions, hallucinations, apprehension, or

anxiety. His recent and remote memory were intact, and he was fully oriented in all

areas. He could recite the alphabet and count backwards from 20, but he made errors

in performing serial three addition. His logical memory for verbal material was very

poor.8

Intelligence testing revealed a full-scale IQ score of 65, which was within the

mild mental retardation range. Claimant also received a verbal comprehension score

of 63/1, a perceptual reasoning score of 67/1, a working memory score of 69/2, and

a processing speed of 84/14. Other than the processing speed score, which was lowaverage, all of those scores were within the mildly retarded range. An aphasia

screening test revealed good drawings, but “extraordinarily bad” spelling, inability

to read a sentence at the second grade level, and inability to perform simple

mathematical calculations. The informal clock drawing test resulted in a “fairly well

drawn clock,” but claimant “did not place the hands correctly.”9 Claimant’s math

7

 Tr. 234-35. 

8

 Tr. 235. 

9

 Tr. 236. 

6

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 13
ability scores were at the mid-fourth-grade level, suggesting that “he is able to

perform very simple mathematical calculations such as simple addition and

subtraction and perhaps multiplication but not division or the use of decimals or

fractions.”10 Claimant’s word reading and spelling scores were at the ending second

grade level, reflecting functional illiteracy.

11

Dr. Goff concluded that claimant was functioning within the mildly mentally

retarded range of psychometric intelligence. He had not reviewed claimant’s school

records, but he doubted that claimant would be able to pass a graduation exit

examination due to his inability to read at a functional level. Claimant’s academic

achievements were at second grade and fourth grade levels. Claimant was

functionally illiterate. He could drive, but he depended on his father for

transportation because he lost his license as a result of failure to pay parking tickets. 

Dr. Goff did not assess any thought or mood disorders “or any other significant

functional psychological disturbance,” and claimant had no history of mental health

treatment.

12

 Dr. Goff’s conclusions were as follows:

1. [Claimant] obtains IQ testscores within the mildly retarded range

of psychometric intelligence.

2. He is functionally illiterate.

10

Id. 

11

Id. 

12

 Tr. 237. 

7

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 13
3. There are other adaptive skills deficits present.

4. He indicates a history of special education placement though we

do not have any school records.

5. His finger apparently hurts but I do not think it is a substantial

interfering factor. It may interfere with some kinds of vocational

activity.

6. Diagnosis:

Axis I: Reading Disorder, Moderate to Severe

Axis II: Mental Retardation, Mild.

13

Finally, Dr. Goff stated: “This man’s cognitive deficits represent severe

impairment.”14

Dr. Goff also completed a “Mental Source Opinion Form (Mental),” although

the form was neither signed nor dated. He indicated that claimant experienced mild

limitations of his abilities to carry out and remember simple instructions, respond

appropriately to supervision and co-workers, respond to customary work pressures,

maintain activities of daily living, and maintain personal habits. Claimant would

experience moderate limitations of his abilities to understand simple instructions,

remember detailed or complex instructions, deal with changes in a routine work

setting, respond appropriately to customers or other members of the general public,

13

Id. (alteration supplied). 

14

 Tr. 238. 

8

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 8 of 13
and use judgment in simple one-or-two-step work-related decisions. He would

experience marked limitations of his abilities to understand and carry out detailed or

complex instructions, use judgment in detailed or complex work-related decisions,

maintain attention and concentration for periods of at least two hours, and maintain

personal interests. All of those limitations had been present for at least twelve

months, and theywere expected to last the remainder of claimant’s lifetime. Claimant

would not be able to manage benefits in his own best interest. Finally, Dr. Goff

indicated that claimant demonstrated deficitsin adaptive functioning manifested prior

to age 22 in three areas: i.e., self-direction; work; and functional academic skills. 

Other adaptive functioning areas(i.e., communication, health, self-care, safety, home

living, leisure, social/interpersonal skills, and use of community resources) were

listed on the form, but Dr. Goff did not indicate that claimant was impaired in those

areas.

15

The ALJ afforded Dr. Goff’s assessment only “limited weight” for three

reasons: i.e., (1) because the opinion was “not consistent with the totality of the

evidence”; (2) because “Dr. Goff was a one-time examiner who had no treatment

relationship with the claimant”; and (3) because “Dr. Goff was ‘hired by the

claimant’s attorney to render an evaluation in preparation for litigation.’”

16 Those are

15

 Tr. 239-40. 

16

 Tr. 24. 

9

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 13
all permissible considerations, so the only remaining question is whether ALJ’s

conclusions were supported by substantial evidence of record. 

As an initial matter, the ALJ criticized “the speculative nature of Dr. Goff’s

estimating and approximating an IQ score of the claimant . . . .”17

 That observation

simply is not supported by the record. Dr. Goff did not speculate as to claimant’s IQ

score; he determined the score after conducting standardized intelligence testing. 

It appearsthat a major reason for the ALJ’srejection of Dr. Goff’s opinion was

that Dr. Goff’s methods had been criticized in an opinion from another district court

in this Circuit.

18

In King v. Apfel, No. CIV.A. 99-0132-RV-M, 2000 WL 284217

(S.D. Ala. Feb. 29, 2000), an unreported decision, the Magistrate Judge (whose

findings were adopted by the district court) approved of the ALJ’s rejection of Dr.

Goff’s assessment of disabling limitations. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found

that “Dr. Goff’s assessment of [the claimant’s] abilities was so out of line with the

balance of the evidence that the ALJ found it lacking objective support.” Id. at *2

(alteration supplied). The Magistrate Judge also observed that “everything else in the

record is counter to the extreme findings of Goff.” Id. Those statements amount to

nothing more than the court’s agreement with the ALJ’s decision to reject Dr. Goff’s

17

 Tr. 25. 

18

Id. (“In viewing a neighboring Eleventh Circuit Federal Court opinion, there appears to be

a history of questionable veracity to the opinions submitted by this consultant as Judge Milling has

been critical of Dr. Goff’s paid-for opinions.”). 

10

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 10 of 13
findings in that case as unsubstantiated and contrary to the record. The rejection of

Dr. Goff’s opinion in a single case that was decided fifteen years ago cannot

reasonably form the basis for rejecting, or even affording extra scrutiny to, his

opinionsin this case. Instead, Dr. Goff’s assessment will be independently evaluated

for its supportability and consistency with the remainder of the record.

The remainder of the ALJ’s observations require closer consideration. The

ALJ stated:

Another area of Dr. Goff’s report that is inconsistent with the

evidence of record is his opinion of a serious degree of adaptive deficits

of the claimant. The evidence of record does not support such extreme

adaptive deficits, but rather just lays out indicators of borderline

intellectual functioning by history with some corroboration by reported

psychometric testing. Specifically, the claimant has had no difficulty in

maintaining employment as the record had indicated a well-established

history of work activity with several years of work activity in excess of

substantial gainful activity levels. Dr. Goff completely failed to address

the claimant’s work history in his overall assessment of his intellectual

capability as well as his ability to adapt to the various work

environments, handle work stress, follow instructions, and interact with

co-workers and supervision, all of which are reasonably implied by such

sustained work activity. Moreover, and of significance in this case, the

claimant testified that he left his job after the “job played out” and the

record supports the same as well astestimony that he could still perform

his former job as a tunnel machine operator. While the claimant does

have a history of special education, he was able to receive a certification

of completion of the twelfth grade. In addition, according to part of Dr.

Goff’s sub-testing (WRAT), the claimantscored word reading, spelling

and math at the mid-fourth grade level, which the vocational expert

testified would allow the claimant to perform the jobs indicated below. 

Accordingly, the undersigned does not accept Dr. Goff’s conclusions

with regard to the claimant’smentalfunctional capacity and very limited

11

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 11 of 13
weight is given to the assessment/opinionsfor reasons set forth above.19

Two of those statements are incorrect. First, claimant’s hearing testimony was

not that he could still perform hisformer job. Instead, he testified that, at the time the

job came to an end in 2006, he could still have performed it. He testified that he

would not be able to perform that job at the time of the administrative hearing, which

was conducted on May 9, 2012.

20 Secondly, only claimant’s math scores were at the

mid-fourth-grade level. His scores for spelling and reading were at the ending

second-grade level, indicating functional illiteracy.

Those errors aside, both of which appear to have been careless, this court

concludes that the ALJ’s decision to discredit Dr. Goff’s opinions about claimant’s

adaptive functioning was supported by substantial evidence. As discussed above,

Claimant’s long work history, which apparently ended for reasons unrelated to his

level of mental functioning, along with his ability to performbasic personal taskslike

driving, paying bills, and performing self-care functions, support the ALJ’s decision

to reject Dr. Goff’s opinion about claimant’s adaptive functioning. 

In summary, while the ALJ’s administrative decision was not perfect and

contained several incorrect observations about the record, his essentialfindings about

claimant’s disability were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with

19

Id. (emphasis in original). 

20

See Tr. 41, 59.

12

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 12 of 13
applicable law. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 

Costs are taxed against claimant. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this file.

DONE this 1st day of May, 2015.

______________________________

United States District Judge

13

Case 7:14-cv-01718-CLS Document 13 Filed 05/01/15 Page 13 of 13