UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SUNNY RAYE CARTER, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-2186-B

§ ECF

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, §

Commissioner of Social Security §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr. made findings, conclusions and a

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed

findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. In addition, the

District Court adds the following analysis:

Plaintiff argues that because the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Plaintiff’s

“affective mood disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, and seizure disorder are considered

‘severe’” at step two of the five step inquiry developed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, the ALJ erred in step

three in finding that Plaintiff did not satisfy the second requirement of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,

App. 1, § 12.05C. (See Administrative Record [Hereinafter “Tr.”] 17) The two requirements of

12.05C are “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.”

Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ found that her affective mood disorder and seizure disorder were severe

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02186-B Document 25 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID 80
and therefore the ALJ erred in not finding that she satisfied the requirement of an additional and

significant work-related limitation of function. The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s interpretation

of the ALJ’s findings.

At step two, the ALJ’s statement that Plaintiff’s “affective mood disorder, borderline

intellectual functioning, and seizure disorder are considered ‘severe’” is imprecise and causes

confusion for the reader. See Bryant v. Apfel, 141 F.3d 1249, 1252 (8th Cir. 1998). In Bryant, the

Eighth Circuit confronted a similar situation in which the ALJ concluded that a learning disability

and headaches are severe impairments. Id. However, the Eighth Circuit pointed out that the ALJ’s

language was imprecise and that such language was clarified later in the decision when the ALJ

explained that while the plaintiff is markedly limited in the cognitive domain, the plaintiff’s

headaches “impose no more than a slight limitation of function.” Id.

Similarly, the ALJ’s imprecise language in this case is clarified by his discussion of the affective

mood disorder and seizure disorder. The ALJ explains that Plaintiff generally only has seizures when

she is not taking her medication and that her depression is a situational disturbance. (Tr. 15) The

ALJ further explains that there is no discussion in the medical records of Plaintiff’s depression for

several years and has not been seen for her seizure disorder or any condition for almost one year (at

the time of his decision). (Tr. 15) The ALJ then concludes that the medical records do not support

Plaintiff’s allegations of symptoms and limitations. (Tr. 15) These findings and conclusions are

supported by substantial evidence in the record. (See, e.g., Tr. 250, 620) Thus, the ALJ’s discussion

of Plaintiff’s affective mood disorder and seizure disorder clarifies the imprecise language and supports

his finding that Plaintiff does not have an impairment equal to a listed impairment, including the

listing under 12.05C. See Bryant, 141 F.3d at 1252. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is

AFFIRMED.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02186-B Document 25 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID 81
SO ORDERED.

SIGNED March 1, 2007

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02186-B Document 25 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID 82