Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00375/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00375-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Carrie Doss
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CARRIE DOSS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 07-0375-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and

1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security denying her claims for disability insurance benefits

supplemental security income. The parties have consented to the exercise of

jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for all

proceedings in this Court. (Doc. 16 (“In accordance with provisions of 28

U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a

United States magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case,

. . . order the entry of a final judgment, and conduct all post-judgment

proceedings.”); see also Doc. 17 (order of reference)) Upon consideration of

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 10
1 The Court has decided this case based upon the written record without the benefit

of oral argument. (See Doc. 23 (order cancelling oral argument))

2 Any appeal taken from this memorandum opinion and order and judgment shall

be made to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 16 (“An appeal from a judgment

entered by a magistrate judge shall be taken directly to the United States court of appeals for this

judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of this district court.”))

2

the administrative record, plaintiff's proposed report and recommendation, and

the Commissioner's proposed report and recommendation,1

 it is determined

that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits should be reversed and

remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.2

Plaintiff alleges disability due to a left leg injury and pain, borderline

intellectual functioning, and depression. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

made the following relevant findings:

3. The claimant has severe impairments, including status

post left tibia, fibula and medial malleolar fracture.

4. The claimant’s impairments, considered individually and

in combination, do not meet or equal in severity any impairment

set forth at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.

5. The claimant’s allegations of pain and functional

limitations are not credible.

6. The claimant retains the residual functional capacity to

perform the exertional requirements of sedentary activity.

7. The claimant cannot perform any past relevant work.

8. The claimant has been a younger individual at all times

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 10
3

relevant to this decision.

9. The claimant completed high school on May 24, 1983,

and completed certified nursing training on March 15, 2003.

10. The transferability of any acquired work skills is not a

material issue.

11. The framework of Rules 201.28 and 201.29 of the

Medical-Vocational Guidelines and vocational expert’s

testimony demonstrate that the claimant has the residual

functional capacity to perform jobs that exist in significant

numbers in the national economy. The vocational expert

provided a representative sampling of such jobs including

Dispatcher (semi-skilled, sedentary) with 2,800 jobs regionally

and 134,000 jobs nationally, Factory Worker (unskilled,

sedentary) with 3,200 jobs regionally and 338,000 jobs

nationally, and Prod. Assembly (unskilled, sedentary) with

12,800 jobs regionally and 662,000 jobs nationally.

12. The claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the

Social Security Act. 

(Tr. 25-26) The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ's decision (Tr. 4-7) and

thus, the hearing decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security.

DISCUSSION

In all Social Security cases, the claimant bears the burden of proving

that she is unable to perform her previous work. Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d

1001 (11th Cir. 1986). In evaluating whether the claimant has met this burden,

the examiner must consider the following four factors: (1) objective medical

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 10
4

facts and clinical findings; (2) diagnoses of examining physicians; (3) evidence

of pain; and (4) the claimant's age, education and work history. Id. at 1005.

Once the claimant meets this burden, as here, it becomes the Commissioner's

burden to prove that the claimant is capable, given her age, education and work

history, of engaging in another kind of substantial gainful employment which

exists in the national economy. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 836 (11th

Cir. 1985).

The task for the Magistrate Judge is to determine whether the

Commissioner's decision to deny claimant benefits, on the basis that she can

perform sedentary work activity, is supported by substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence is defined as more than a scintilla and means such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d

842 (1971). "In determining whether substantial evidence exists, we must

view the record as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as

unfavorable to the [Commissioner's] decision." Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d

129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986).

In this case, the plaintiff contends that the the following errors were

made: (1) the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions of the treating physician, Dr.

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 4 of 10
3 This finding reaches the ALJ’s evaluation of plaintiff’s mental impairments as

well. In this case, the ALJ failed to evaluate Doss’ mental impairments in the manner prescribed

by the Commissioner’s own regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a and 416.920a (2007), as well as

controlling case law in the Eleventh Circuit, see Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir.

2005). Therefore, this case need be remanded for the ALJ’s proper analysis of plaintiff’s mental

impairments.

5

Judy C. Travis; (2) the ALJ erred in failing to fully and fairly develop the

record by re-contacting the treating physician for clarification of her records;

(3) the ALJ erred in failing to fully and fairly develop the record by ordering

a consultative examination; (4) the ALJ erred in assigning a residual functional

capacity without the support of any treating or examining physician; and (5)

the Appeals Council erred in failing to remand in light of additional evidence

submitted to it. Because the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination

is not supported by substantial evidence,3

 this Court need not reach the

remaining issues raised by plaintiff. See Pendley v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 1561,

1563 (11th Cir. 1985) (“Because the ‘misuse of the expert’s testimony alone

warrants a reversal,’ we do not consider the appellant’s other claims.”).

It is clear in this circuit that the Commissioner of Social Security must

develop "a full and fair record regarding the vocational opportunities available

to a claimant." Allen v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1200, 1201 (11th Cir. 1989)

(citation omitted). The Commissioner must articulate specific jobs that the

claimant can perform given her age, education and work history, if any, "and

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 5 of 10
6

this finding must be supported by substantial evidence, not mere intuition or

conjecture." See id. (citation omitted). The means by which the

Commissioner meets this burden include use of the grids and reliance on

vocational expert testimony. See id. at 1201-1202. 

In this case, the ALJ made the following finding: “The claimant retains

the residual functional capacity to perform the exertional requirements of

sedentary activity.” (Tr. 25, Finding No. 6) The ALJ then proceeded to find

that the framework of Rules 201.28 and 201.29 of the grids, along with the

vocational expert’s testimony, directed a finding that plaintiff was not disabled

since there exist a significant number of sedentary jobs in the national

economy that plaintiff can perform. (Tr. 26, Finding No. 11) The ALJ’s

reliance upon the framework of the grids and the vocational expert’s testimony

to satisfy the Commissioner’s fifth-step burden necessarily stands and falls

upon his determination that Doss retains the residual functional capacity to

perform the exertional and non-exertional requirements of sedentary work.

Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a

time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket

files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary job is

defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of

walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out job

duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required

occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met. 

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 6 of 10
4 The opinion of a non-examining, reviewing physician “is entitled to little weight

and taken alone does not constitute substantial evidence to support an administrative decision.”

Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222, 226 n.3 (11th Cir. 1990). 

7

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a) & 416.967(a) (2007). Social Security Ruling 83-10

provides that “‘[o]ccasionally’ means occurring from very little up to one-third

of the time. Since being on one’s feet is required ‘occasionally’ at the

sedentary level of exertion, periods of standing or walking should generally

total no more than about 2 hours of an 8-hour workday, and sitting should

generally total approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday.” Id. 

As is clear from the foregoing discussion, in this circuit the burden is

upon the Commissioner at the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process

to establish capacity to perform other work and thereby to establish the

claimant’s residual functional capacity. See Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553,

1559 (11th Cir. 1995). This Court has held on numerous occasions that the

Commissioner’s fifth-step burden cannot be met by a lack of evidence or

otherwise, where available, by the residual functional capacity assessment of

a non-examining, reviewing physician,4 see, e.g., Sharp v. Barnhart, CA 01-

0325-BH-C, but instead must be supported by the residual functional capacity

assessment of a treating or examining physician. Such an assessment is

particularly warranted where, as here, the ALJ has rejected the only physical

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 7 of 10
5 In addition, there is no evidence which establishes that plaintiff can perform the

mental requirements of sedentary work. In this regard, the ALJ rejected the only mental medical

source statement completed by an examining physician, that is, Dr. Donald W. Blanton’s RFC

assessment (Compare Tr. 23 with Tr. 164-165 & Tr. 160-163), with no contrary assessment

contained in the record. The ALJ’s rejection of Blanton’s assessment is grounded, in no small

part, in his determination that plaintiff does not have a severe mental impairment (Tr. 21-22).

The ALJ’s “severity” analysis as it relates to plaintiff’s mental diagnoses of depression and

borderline intellectual functioning is deficient because the ALJ failed to follow the

Commissioner’s own regulations by attaching to his decision a PRTF or otherwise by performing

the functional analysis contained in the Commissioner’s regulations before making the

determination that plaintiff’s diagnosed mental impairments were not severe. 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520a(d)(1) & (2) (2007) (“After we rate the degree of functional limitation resulting from

your impairment(s), we will determine the severity of your mental impairment(s). (1) If we rate

8

RFC assessment in the record. (See Tr. 23) The ALJ specifically rejected the

physical medical source statement and clinical assessment of pain form

completed by plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Judy Travis. (Compare id. with

Tr. 168-171) Dr. Travis’ physical medical source statement alone establishes

that plaintiff cannot perform sedentary work (id. at 168), as acknowledged by

the vocational expert (Tr. 209-210). Having rejected Travis’ physical RFC

assessment, the ALJ necessarily had to point to another PCE which supported

his fifth-step determination that plaintiff can perform sedentary work activity.

Because this record contains no physical RFC assessment, other than the

rejected RFC completed by Dr. Travis, there is simply no basis upon which

this Court can find that the ALJ’s sedentary work determination is supported

by substantial evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever which establishes

that plaintiff can perform the physical requirements of sedentary work5

 and,

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 8 of 10
the degree of your limitation in the first three functional areas [activities of daily living; social

functioning; and concentration, persistence, or pace] as ‘none’ or ‘mild’ and ‘none’ in the fourth

area [episodes of decompensation], we will generally conclude that your impairment(s) is not

severe, unless the evidence otherwise indicates that there is more than a minimal limitation in

your ability to do basic work activities . . . . (2) If your mental impairment(s) is severe, we will

then determine if it meets or is equivalent in severity to a listed mental disorder.”); see also 20

C.F.R. § 416.920a(d)(1) & (2) (2007) (same). It appears to the Court that the reason the ALJ did

not perform the foregoing analysis before determining the severity of plaintiff’s mental

impairments, as required, is because he had no mental medical source statement to rely upon to

properly perform the analysis. This error must be corrected on remand. 

9

certainly, an ALJ’s RFC determination must be supported by substantial and

tangible evidence, not mere intuition or conjecture regarding what a

physician’s clinical findings equate to in terms of physical abilities. Cf. Cole

v. Barnhart, 293 F.Supp.2d 1234, 1242 (D.Kan. 2003) (“The ALJ is

responsible for making a RFC determination, and he must link his findings to

substantial evidence in the record and explain his decision.”).

The Commissioner has not satisfied his fifth-step burden of proving that

Doss is capable of performing other work existing in significant numbers in

the national economy and therefore, the Commissioner’s decision denying

claimant benefits is reversed and remanded for further proceedings not

inconsistent with this decision. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ORDERS that the decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security denying plaintiff benefits be reversed and remanded pursuant to

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 9 of 10
10

sentence four of § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct.

2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), for further proceedings not inconsistent with this

decision. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff

a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239

(1993), and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter.

DONE and ORDERED this the 20th day of December, 2007.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00375-C Document 24 Filed 12/20/07 Page 10 of 10