Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00361/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00361-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Kenard Martin
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENARD MARTIN, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 07-0361-M 

: 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of : 

Social Security, : 

: 

Defendant. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security

ruling which denied claims for disability insurance benefits and

Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter SSI) (Docs. 1, 18). 

The parties filed written consent and this action has been

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all

proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 25). Oral argument

was waived in this action (Doc. 27). Upon consideration of the

administrative record and the memoranda of the parties, it is

ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED and

that this action be REMANDED to the Social Security

Administration for further administrative proceedings, to include

an evidentiary hearing conducted by a different Administrative

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 10
1Plaintiff has appeared before this Court previously in

connection with these same applications. After being denied benefits

by the Social Security Administration, this Court found that the

Administrative decisions were not supported by substantial evidence;

the action was then remanded for further review. Martin v. Barnhart,

C.A. 04-0107-P-M (S.D. Ala. January 24, 2005). 

2

Law Judge.

This Court is not free to reweigh the evidence or substitute

its judgment for that of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir.

1983), which must be supported by substantial evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). The substantial evidence test requires "that the decision under review be supported

by evidence sufficient to justify a reasoning mind in accepting

it; it is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance." 

Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 918 (11th Cir. 1984), quoting

Jones v. Schweiker, 551 F.Supp. 205 (D. Md. 1982).

Martin was twenty-six years old at the time he has alleged

he became disabled; he has completed a high school education, and

has previous work experience as a furniture repairman, stocker,

laborer, janitor, and telemarketer (Doc. 19). In claiming

benefits, Plaintiff alleges disability due to mental illness

resulting in psychosis (Doc. 19).

The Plaintiff protectively filed applications for disability

benefits and SSI on May 16, 2002 (Tr. 60-64; see Tr. 321).1

Benefits were denied following a hearing by an Administrative Law

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 10
3

Judge (ALJ) who determined that Martin was capable of performing

his past relevant work as a generic laborer at a furniture

company (Tr. 318-38). Plaintiff requested review of the hearing

decision (Tr. 313-17) by the Appeals Council, but it was denied

(Tr. 309-12).

Plaintiff claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not

supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Martin alleges

that: (1) The ALJ did not properly evaluate the conclusions and

opinions of his treating physician; (2) the ALJ improperly

discredited his testimony; and (3) the ALJ did not properly

analyze his mental impairment (Doc. 18). Defendant has responded

to—and denies—these claims (Doc. 20).

Plaintiff's first claim is that the ALJ did not properly

evaluate the conclusions and opinions of his treating physician. 

Martin raised this claim in the previous action before this

Court; the Undersigned entered a Report and Recommendation, on

December 27, 2004, which addressed the issue, stating as follows:

Plaintiff first claims that the ALJ did

not accord proper legal weight to the

opinions, diagnoses and medical evidence of

his physician. Martin specifically

references his treating psychiatrist, Dr.

Rajani Joshi, in making this claim (Doc. 10,

p. 2). It should be noted that "although the

opinion of an examining physician is

generally entitled to more weight than the

opinion of a non-examining physician, the ALJ

is free to reject the opinion of any

physician when the evidence supports a

contrary conclusion." Oldham v. Schweiker,

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 10
2The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc decision Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), adopted as precedent

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1,

1981.

3Zyprexa is used for the “management of the manifestations of

psychotic disorders.” Physician's Desk Reference 1512 (52nd ed. 1998).

4Prolixin “is an antipsychotic medication used to treat

schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations,

delusions, and hostility.” This information was provided by the U.S.

National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. 

See http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a682172.html

5Zoloft is “indicated for the treatment of depression.” 

Physician's Desk Reference 2229-34 (52nd ed. 1998). 

4

660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981);2 see

also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (2004). The

relevant medical history follows.

A report dated February 27, 2002 from

the Director of Clinical Counseling Services

with Catholic Social Services indicated that

Martin had “scored in the range for severe

depression on the Beck Depression Inventory”

(Tr. 155). Dr. Rajani Joshi, with Mobile

Mental Health, performed a psychiatric

evaluation on June 6, 2002, finding that

Plaintiff was depressed, delusional,

experiencing auditory and visual

hallucinations; the psychiatrist diagnosed

Martin as being psychotic and prescribed

continued medication with Zyprexa,3

Prolixin,4 and Zoloft5 (Tr. 191-94). On

August 19, Dr. Joshi re-prescribed the

Zyprexa and Prolixin (Doc. 186). On November

14, 2002, the Psychiatrist completed a

residual functional capacity form in which he

indicated that Martin was, for the most part,

moderately limited in all work-related

activities; the exception was that he was

markedly deficient in concentration,

persistence or pace (Tr. 225-26). In a

letter written a week later, Dr. Joshi

indicated that Plaintiff’s prognosis was poor

(Tr. 227).

On July 2, 2002, Plaintiff was seen by

Psychologist Daniel L. Koch who administered

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 4 of 10
6The record copy of Koch's report is not very good and parts of

it are hard to read (see Tr. 181-84). The name of this specific test

is one such example.

5

the WAIS-III which resulted in scores

indicating mild mental retardation (Tr. 181-

84). Administration of the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory was found

to be invalid because of an elevated F scale

which was consistent with profiles seen in

paranoid schizophrenics (Tr. 183). Another

test indicated neurological impairment6

(id.). The Psychologist recommended

evaluation by a Psychiatrist for chemical

treatment for Martin’s thought disorder.

On January 21, 2003, Psychologist Damon

Ann Robinson performed an assessment and

found Plaintiff to be acutely psychotic (Tr.

250-58). Robinson found Martin’s thoughts to

be fragmented and disorganized; she

determined that the results of the

intelligence test he took were invalid

because of his acute psychosis (Tr. 254). The

Psychologist found his prognosis to be “quite

poor.” Robinson noted that Martin provided

good effort during the evaluation. The

Psychologist completed a mental residual

functional capacity form which indicated that

Plaintiff was markedly limited in all work

abilities (Tr. 256-57).

The ALJ rejected the opinions of Joshi,

Koch, and Robinson (Tr. 19-23). The

conclusions of Joshi and Robinson were

rejected because the examiners did not have

all of the medical information of record

before them in rendering their opinions (Tr.

19). The ALJ also found their opinions to be

inconsistent with each other (Tr. 19). 

Koch’s opinion was discounted because of

inconsistencies with Plaintiff’s testimony

(Tr. 23).

The ALJ adopted the conclusions of

Psychiatrist C. E. Smith who determined,

after a single examination, that Martin

was a malingerer (Tr. 262-65). Smith made

this determination because Plaintiff was

uncooperative during his assessment, because

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 5 of 10
6

of inconsistent statements made by Martin

over the course of his medical treatment, and

widely disparate scores on IQ tests in light

of the fact that school records indicated

no mental retardation.

The Court finds that the ALJ’s

conclusions regarding Joshi, Koch, and

Robinson are not supported by substantial

evidence. Specifically, Joshi, the treating

psychiatrist, prescribed anti-psychotic

medications and, although the treatment was

conservative, treated Plaintiff for

psychosis; although he saw Martin only twice,

it was twice as often as Dr. Smith. Koch

indicated that the IQ scores were a valid

assessment of Martin’s abilities; the ALJ did

not even bother to report these scores, much

less discuss them (see Tr. 23). Although

Robinson did not have school records to

evaluate, she referred to other medical

records to which she did have access

in making her decision (Tr. 251 [Mobile

Mental Health Department and Koch]). All

three of these examiners were able to do an

evaluation, something which Smith admitted he

was unable to do.

As for the school records, the medical

evidence notes Martin’s assertion that his

“brain damage” came about because of a head

injury when he was twenty years old (see,

e.g., Tr. 191, 250). This information

renders the school records irrelevant for

anything that medically occurred after he

left school.

The Court is aware that Petitioner has

provided inconsistent statements throughout

the course of his medical history with regard

to alcohol and drug abuse and child support.

The Court notes, though, that this does not

seem inconsistent for a psychotic person.

While the Court does not find that Martin is

disabled, it does find that the opinions of

Dr. Smith do not outweigh those of Joshi,

Koch, and Robinson. On this basis, the Court

finds that the opinion of the ALJ is not

supported by substantial evidence.

Based on review of the entire record,

the Court finds that the Commissioner's

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 6 of 10
7

decision is not supported by substantial

evidence. Therefore, it is recommended that

the action be reversed and remanded to the

Social Security Administration for further

administrative proceedings consistent

with this opinion, to include, at a minimum,

a supplemental hearing for the gathering of

evidence regarding Plaintiff’s mental

impairments.

(Tr. 372-77). On January 24, 2005, Senior U.S. District Judge

Virgil Pittman adopted the Report and Recommendation, without

objection, and entered judgment against Defendant, remanding this

action "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion"

(Tr. 365-66). 

Following remand, an evaluation was performed by

Psychologist John W. Davis on May 23, 2005 (Tr. 393-99). 

Martin's mother provided historical information; the Social

Security Office provided additional information (Tr. 393, 397). 

Davis noted that Plaintiff had "thought processing abnormalities

that interfere with communication" and that he seemed, generally,

depressed (Tr. 394). Though Martin was oriented to person,

place, and time, there were "indications of deficits in his

overall concentration or attention" (id.). The Psychologist

noted "loose associations, tangential and circumstantial

thinking. Confusion was seen. Overall thought processes [were]

simple and limited" (Tr. 395). Davis found indications of

"hallucinations, delusions, and other circumstances of perceptual

disturbance" as well as "feeling of detachment from his

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 7 of 10
8

environment;" Plaintiff showed "distortions, ideas of reference,

depersonalization, doubting, indecisions, grandiosity,

unworthiness, helplessness, hopelessness, and paranoid ideations"

(id.). Judgment and insight were impaired. The Psychologist

administered the WAIS-III on which Martin obtained a Verbal IQ of

61, a Performance IQ of 54, and a Full Scale IQ of 54; Davis

indicated that he thought "the results [were] a reliable and

valid estimate of the claimant's current level of intellectual

functioning and that the claimant did put forth his best effort"

(Tr. 396). The MMPI was also administered, but the Psychologist

indicated that the results were invalid because "the claimant was

so disoriented that he was not aware of the situation;" Davis

indicated that this was "consistent with a throught [sic] process

disorder" (id.). The examiner noted that Martin's language

skills "would suggest a higher IQ but the thought process

disorer, confusion, illogical thinking, and loose associations

all render a functioning in the Mild Mental Retardation range"

(id.). Davis diagnosed Plaintiff to suffer from Mild Mental

Retardation and Schizophrenia/Chronic Undifferentiated Type and

indicated that his prognosis was poor (Tr. 397). The

Psychologist's concluding thought were as follows:

The medical evidence of record provided

by the [Social Security Administration] was

reviewed and those findings were considered

in the overall assessment of this claimant.

It is this examiner's opinion that the

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 8 of 10
7The ALJ in this action is the same as the ALJ in the previous

action before this Court.

9

claimant's ability to function in an age

appropriate manner, cognitively,

communicatively, and socially are markedly

impaired. His capacity to show

concentration, persistence, and pace in an

age appropriate manner are markedly impaired. 

It is this examiner's opinion that the

claimant's presentation of today's evaluation

is valid, relative to the history and

observation from other sources.

This claimant does not have the ability

to do simple, routine, repetitive type tasks. 

He does not get along with others. He cannot

manage any benefits that may be forthcoming.

(Tr. 397). 

The ALJ7 rejected the opinion of Davis because "the

information provided by the claimant is characterized by

misstatements and blatant untruths" (Tr. 333). Again, the ALJ

rejected the conclusions of Psychiatrist Joshi, Psychologist

Robinson, and Psychologist Koch and gave greater weight to

Psychiatrist Smith (Tr. 332-33); he also credited the opinions of

a State Agency Psychologist who never examined Martin (Tr. 334;

see also 204-17).

The Court finds that the ALJ's conclusions are not supported

by substantial evidence. The ALJ has rejected the opinions of a

treating Psychiatrist and three Psychologists for the opinion of

a Psychiatrist who saw Plaintiff once and a Psychologist who

never saw him.

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 9 of 10
10

Based on review of the entire record, the Court finds that

the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the action be REVERSED and

REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further

administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion, to

include, at a minimum, a supplemental hearing for the gathering

of evidence regarding Plaintiff's mental impairment. 

Furthermore, the Appeals Council is DIRECTED to remand this

action to a different ALJ for further consideration. Judgment

will be entered by separate Order. 

DONE this 24th day of January, 2008.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00361-M Document 28 Filed 01/24/08 Page 10 of 10