UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

KIMBERLY ANDERWOOD, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-58-MAC

'

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECUIRTY, '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff requests judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security Administration with respect to her application for disability-based benefits. The court 

referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for 

consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge 

submitted a report recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. The court 

received and considered the Report and Recommendation (#17) of United States Magistrate Judge 

filed pursuant to such referral, along with the Objections (#18) filed by the Plaintiff, the record, 

pleadings, and all available evidence. 

Anderwood objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the ALJ properly considered

the opinion of Dr. Frankie Clark regarding her mental conditions. She asserts that the magistrate

judge implied that self-reported statements should not be considered as evidence. To the 

contrary, it appears that Judge Stetson was summarizing Anderwood’s arguments contained in 

her brief and went on to point out that the ALJ properly considered these subjective complaints 

but discounted them due to her lack of treatment and lack of medication compliance. (#17, p.

Case 9:23-cv-00058-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 08/22/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 583
2

12-13.) Even Dr. Clark noted that Anderwood’s “prognosis is guarded due to lack of treatment.” 

(Tr. 401.) Although Anderwood is correct that an examiner may rely on subjective complaints

in completing an assessment, an ALJ can choose to give that opinion less weight if the other 

evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s statements being used as a basis for that 

opinion. See Cain v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:21-CV-00005, 2022 WL 3575293, at *17 

(S.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2022), R.&R. adopted, 2022 WL 2965957 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2022)

(“[T]he ALJ discussed the competing evidence in the decision, including the observations and 

findings of Dr. Alvarez-Sanders, and found her limitations were not supported for the reasons 

discussed above, including reasoning for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.”). 

Further, Anderwood claims that Dr. Clark’s opinion is consistent with her PHQ-9

1

scores. The record does not indicate that Dr. Clark gave Anderwood a PHQ-9 assessment, nor 

did he mention these scores given by other providers. Moreover, as noted by Judge Stetson, her 

highest score of 17 was assessed by Nurse Utpadel, who ultimately determined that Anderwood 

did not have a severe mental impairment, giving these scores little credence on the issue of her 

actual mental functional limitations. (Tr. 347.) As noted by a district court in this circuit, “a

PHQ-9 score is just one step in diagnosing and treating depression.” Long v. Colvin, No. CV 

16-5089, 2017 WL 2889367, at *1 (E.D. La. July 7, 2017). The court explained that this test

is based upon the claimant’s self-reported answers to questions and must be interpreted by a 

clinician. Id. (citing Hernandez v. Astrue, 814 F.Supp.2d 168, 175 n.8 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). 

Ultimately, the Long court, like here, found the claimant’s PHQ-9 score was not determinative 

1

“The PHQ–9 is a tool for assisting primary care clinicians in diagnosing depression as well as selecting and 

monitoring treatment.” Long v. Colvin, No. CV 16-5089, 2017 WL 2889367, at *1 (E.D. La. July 7, 2017) (quoting 

Luckett v. Astrue, No. 09-5211, 2011 WL 336250, at *3 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 31, 2011)).

Case 9:23-cv-00058-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 08/22/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 584
3

of the claimant’s functional limitations considering the lack of mental health treatment and other 

evidence in the record. See id.

Judge Stetson also correctly found that the ALJ’s vague analysis was sound as to Dr. 

Clark’s functional limitations. Dr. Clark’s conclusions state that Anderwood is impaired in 

relating to others and concentration, persistence and pace is “likely slower.” (Tr. 401.) As 

Judge Stetson noted, the ALJ, himself, found mild2limitations in interacting with others and 

concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace, but that does not equate to a severe impairment 

or disabling limitations. (Tr. 26.) Thus, it is unclear whether Dr. Clark’s limitations are also 

“mild” or whether they are more severe and inconsistent with the ALJ’s findings. The ALJ also 

noted that Dr. Clark’s findings were inconsistent with the actual exam. For example, regarding 

interacting with others, Dr. Clark stated that she does not have friends. (Tr. 399.) He also 

noted, however, that she was driven to the session “by a friend from a distance of 45 minutes”

and that “she lives with friends.” (Tr. 398.) He also reported that she has no problems with 

people in authority. (Tr. 399.) 

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings 

and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The court finds that the ALJ properly 

weighed Dr. Clark’s opinions against the other evidence and the record as a whole. The “ALJ 

is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.”

Moore v. Saul, No. 3:20-cv-48-DPJ-MTP, 2021 WL 909618, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2021); 

see also Gina R. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:19-CV-2038-BK, 2021 WL 1209198, at *3-4 

(N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2021) (finding substantial evidence for the ALJ's RFC assessment where 

2 The first two points on the scale, i.e. “none” and “mild” do not indicate a severe impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1520a (2017).

Case 9:23-cv-00058-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 08/22/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 585
4

the full medical record did not support the limitations put forth by the consultative examiner). 

Therefore, the court concludes that Anderwood’s objections are without merit, and the magistrate 

judge properly found the ALJ’s application of the sequential analysis was free from legal error 

and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation, OVERRULES the Plaintiff’s objections, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s 

denial of benefits. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation.

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 22nd day of August, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00058-MAC-CLS Document 19 Filed 08/22/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 586