Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00641/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00641-0/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 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

DORIS MCCALL, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:12cv641-WC 

 ) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Plaintiff, Doris McCall, applied for supplemental security income (“SSI”) and 

disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). 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 at any time through the date of the decision. The 

Appeals Council rejected Plaintiff’s 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 under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

 

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 2:12-cv-00641-WC Document 17 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 8
2 

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. 7); Def.’s Consent to Jurisdiction (Doc. 8). Based on the court’s 

review of the record and the briefs of the parties, the court REMANDS the decision of 

the Commissioner. 

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. 

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 which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic 

techniques. 

Case 2:12-cv-00641-WC Document 17 Filed 12/20/13 Page 2 of 8
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. RFC is what the claimant is still 

able to do despite his impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other 

evidence. Id. It also can 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 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). 

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

Case 2:12-cv-00641-WC Document 17 Filed 12/20/13 Page 3 of 8
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 2:12-cv-00641-WC Document 17 Filed 12/20/13 Page 4 of 8
5 

III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

 Plaintiff was fifty years old at the time of the hearing before the ALJ and had a 

limited education. Tr. 34. Plaintiff’s past relevant work was as a “packer,” “cook,” and 

“janitor.” Id. Following the administrative hearing, and employing the five-step process, 

the ALJ found Plaintiff “has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 

14, 2008, the alleged onset date.” (Step 1) Tr. 27. At Step 2, the ALJ found that Plaintiff 

suffers from the following severe impairments: “degenerative disc disease; history of 

asthma; osteoarthritis; and history of schizophrenia with no current treatment or 

symptoms.” Id. The ALJ then found that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed 

impairments.” (Step 3) Tr. 28. Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has the RFC to 

perform light work, but she could only have occasional contact with the general public 

Tr. 29. The ALJ then concluded that Plaintiff “is unable to perform any past relevant 

work.” (Step 4) Tr. 34. At Step 5, the ALJ found that, “[c]onsidering the claimant’s age, 

education, work experience, and residual functional capacity,” and after consulting with 

the VE, “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the 

claimant can perform.” Id. The ALJ identified the following occupations as examples: 

“gate tender,” “production inspector,” and “shirt presser.” Tr. 24. Accordingly, the ALJ 

determined that Plaintiff “has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social 

Security Act, from November 14, 2008, through the date of the decision.” Tr. 35. 

Case 2:12-cv-00641-WC Document 17 Filed 12/20/13 Page 5 of 8
6 

IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

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

decision: (1) whether “[t]he Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the 

ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standards in addressing [Plaintiff’s] subjective 

complaints of debilitating pain”; and (2) whether the Commissioner properly evaluated 

Plaintiff’s deficiencies in intellectual functioning. Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 12) at 5. Because the 

ALJ committed reversible error with regard two issue two, which requires a remand for 

additional consideration, the court will decline to review issue one. 

V. DISCUSSION 

At the center of the second issue presented by Plaintiff is the opinion rendered by 

Dr. King in 1991, wherein he diagnosed Plaintiff with “schizophrenia, undifferentiated, 

chronic and severe mental retardation.” See Tr. 30. In his opinion, the ALJ makes 

mention of the diagnosis, but nothing more. In fact not only does the ALJ make only one 

passing mention of the diagnosis, he makes no further references to mental retardation. 

While the ALJ does discuss the examination of Plaintiff by a consultative examiner, an 

osteopathic physician, the examiner diagnosed Plaintiff with schizophrenia by report, but 

performed no intelligence testing. Another consultative physician opined there was 

insufficient evidence to determine mental impairment and the opinions of two other 

consultative physicians, both of whom were rejected by the ALJ, were that Plaintiff had 

no medically determinable impairments. Tr. 31. 

Case 2:12-cv-00641-WC Document 17 Filed 12/20/13 Page 6 of 8
7 

 Plaintiff argues that it was error for the ALJ to fail to discuss or consider the 

severe mental retardation and whether it met section 12.05(B) of the Listings. Pl.’s Br. 

(Doc. 12) at 12. The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ “acknowledged Plaintiff’s 

1991 IQ score and that she had been assessed with severe mental retardation” and 

“acknowledged that Plaintiff had another severe impairment.” Def.’s Br. (Doc. 15) at 8-

9. The Commissioner then invites the court to “infer that the ALJ, in finding that 

Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet the requirements of the Listings, concluded that 

Plaintiff had a valid IQ score that met the requirements of sections 12.05B and 12.05C of 

the Listings, and another impairment that met the requirements of section 12.05C of the 

Listings.” Id. at 9. The Commissioner further invites the court to assume then, that 

because the ALJ did not make the finding that Plaintiff me the Listing, it must be because 

the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not satisfied the introductory paragraph of 12.05. Thus, 

in order to affirm the ALJ’s decision, the court must assume (1) the ALJ did undertake an 

analysis of Plaintiff’s mental impairments under Listing 12.05; (2) the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff had a valid IQ that met the listings;5

 and that (3) the reason the ALJ did not 

award benefits was based on his finding that Plaintiff was unable to show deficits in 

adaptive functioning manifested prior to age 22. Then, after making all of those 

assumptions, the court is to review the ALJ’s supposed findings for substantial evidence. 

 

5 The importance of this finding cannot be overstated where it is “critical that an ALJ specifically address 

and resolve the validity of an I.Q. score; if the I.Q. score is valid and meets or equals the criteria of a 

listed impairment, the ALJ can go no further.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 2004 WL 3366150, *2 (11th Cir. 

2004). 

Case 2:12-cv-00641-WC Document 17 Filed 12/20/13 Page 7 of 8
8 

 The court will decline the Commissioner’s invitation. Instead, the court finds it 

appropriate to remand the case back to the Commission for a full and reviewable decision 

which explains why, after finding that “Plaintiff had a valid IQ score that met the 

requirements of sections 12.05B and 12.05C of the Listings, and another impairment that 

met the requirements of section 12.05C of the Listings,” Plaintiff did not meet a Listing. 

VI. CONCLUSION

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

for the reasons given above, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this 

case REMANDED. A separate judgment will issue. 

 Done this 20th day of December, 2013. 

 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:12-cv-00641-WC Document 17 Filed 12/20/13 Page 8 of 8