Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_08-cv-00885/USCOURTS-almd-1_08-cv-00885-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Felix A. George
Plaintiff

Document Text:

Pursuant to the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1

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.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FELIX A. GEORGE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08cv885WC

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) 

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Felix A. George Johnson applied for disability insurance benefits under Title

II of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. Plaintiff’s application was

denied at the initial administrative level. Plaintiff then requested and received two hearings

before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Following the hearings, the ALJ also denied the

claims. The Appeals Council rejected a subsequent request for review. The ALJ’s decision

consequently became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

(Commissioner). See Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). The case is 1

now before the Court for review 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

Case 1:08-cv-00885-WC Document 16 Filed 12/01/09 Page 1 of 8
A “physical or mental impairment” is one resulting from anatomical, 2

physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

2

by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Pl.’s Consent to Jurisdiction (Doc. #7);

Def.’s Consent to Jurisdiction (Doc. #6). Based on the Court’s review of the record and the

briefs of the parties, the Court AFFIRMS 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 (2006).

(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

answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of “not

disabled.”

Case 1:08-cv-00885-WC Document 16 Filed 12/01/09 Page 2 of 8
McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir. 1986), is a supplemental security 3

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).

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

3

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 Guidelines (grids) or call a vocational 4

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 experience.

Each factor can independently limit the number of jobs realistically available to an

Case 1:08-cv-00885-WC Document 16 Filed 12/01/09 Page 3 of 8
4

individual. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240. Combinations of these factors yield a statutorilyrequired 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 1:08-cv-00885-WC Document 16 Filed 12/01/09 Page 4 of 8
5

III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff was forty-eight years old at the time of the alleged disability onset and had

at least a highschool education. (Tr. 30). Plaintiff’s past relevant work experience was as

a production worker at a tire plant. (Tr. 29). Following the second administrative hearing,

and employing the five-step process, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial

gainful activity since the alleged onset date of October 7, 2003 (Step 1). (Tr. 22). At Step

2, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffers from the following severe impairments: “cervicalgia

secondary to cervical degenerative disc disease, central stenosis, failed neck surgery

syndrome, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and bilateral CTS.” (Tr. 22). 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. 25). Next, the ALJ found that

Plaintiff retains the RFC to perform light work. (Tr. 26). Given this level of RFC, the ALJ

determined that Plaintiff is unable to perform past relevant work. (Step 4) (Tr. 29-30). The

ALJ also found that, considering claimant’s age, education, work experience, RFC, and the

Medical-Vocational Guidelines, Plaintiff could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers

in the national economy. (Tr. 30). Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff is not

disabled. (Tr. 31).

IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

The only statement in Plaintiff’s brief that could be considered a claim is on page one,

where Plaintiff states: “That the decision of the Defendant is not supported by substantial

Case 1:08-cv-00885-WC Document 16 Filed 12/01/09 Page 5 of 8
 Further, Plaintiff’s brief was not filed in a manner prescribed by the November 5, 2008, 5

Order, in which the Court instructed:

Plaintiff’s brief shall contain a section titled “Statement of the Issues.” In this section

in numbered paragraphs, Plaintiff shall state in a concise, specific manner each

issue which Plaintiff presents to the court for resolution. Issues not presented in the

Statement of the Issues will not be considered. . . 

Claims or contentions by Plaintiff alleging deficiencies in the ALJ’s consideration

of claims or alleging mistaken conclusions of fact or law and contentions or

arguments by the Commissioner supporting the ALJ’s conclusions of fact or law

must include a specific reference, by page number, to the portion of the record

which (recites the ALJ’s consideration or conclusion and (2) which supports the

party’s claims, contentions or arguments. 

Order (Doc. #2) at 2-3.

 Plaintiff does not even allege that the ALJ erred in determining that his depression was 6

not disabling, much less how the ALJ might have erred. 

6

evidence and applies an erroneous standard of law.” Pl.’s Brief (Doc. #11) at 1. However,

this is not a proper presentation of a claim. As stated in this Court’s November 5, 2008,

Order, “general statements of issues such as ‘the ALJ's decision is not supported by

substantial evidence’ will not be considered by the court.” (Doc. #2) at n.1.5

V. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s brief alleges no error by the ALJ. Rather, Plaintiff merely makes a series

of statements that one might find in a “facts” section of a brief. Plaintiff completely fails to

allege any wrong-doing or error by the ALJ. 

Plaintiff starts the “Argument” section of his brief by declaring that he suffers from

a history of neck and back pain and that he also suffers from debilitating depression. Pl.’s 6

Case 1:08-cv-00885-WC Document 16 Filed 12/01/09 Page 6 of 8
7

Brief (Doc. #11) at 2. Plaintiff then states that “[t]here are conflicting Dr. studies and

conflicting RFC exams that range from ‘no limitations’ to ‘meets listing’” and then proceeds

to outline a few examples of what he sees as conflicting medical opinions. Id. Plaintiff then

concludes with a prayer for relief. Id.

In response, the Commissioner pointed out the inadequacies of Plaintiff’s brief, then

attempted to infer arguments on Plaintiff’s behalf and respond. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility

to present arguments on his own behalf, not the Commissioner’s, or the Court’s. Indeed, it

is Plaintiff’s burden to prove he is disabled. See Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th

Cir. 1999) (refusing to consider arguments not raised before the district court). “It is not

enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to

do counsel’s work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones. [] Judges

are not expected to be mindreaders. Consequently, a litigant has an obligation to spell out

its arguments squarely and distinctly, or else forever hold its peace.” United States v.

Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted). 

Under the normal standard of review this Court must “scrutinize the record in its

entirety to determine the reasonableness of the secretary’s factual findings.” Walker v.

Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999 (11th Cir. 1987). The Court has reviewed the record and finds

that the ALJ’s determinations were reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and

without error. 

Case 1:08-cv-00885-WC Document 16 Filed 12/01/09 Page 7 of 8
8

VI. CONCLUSION

The Court has carefully and independently reviewed the record and concludes the

decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. A separate judgment will issue.

DONE this 1st day of December, 2009.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00885-WC Document 16 Filed 12/01/09 Page 8 of 8