IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SHIRLEY HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-24/RS-EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff, Shirley Harris, applied for disability benefits on April 17, 2006, alleging 

disability due to bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome, arthritis in the knees, shoulder injury, 

back pain, cervical spondylosis, and anxiety. Doc. 23, p.2; Tr. 46; Tr. 53. On November 

28, 2008, after a hearing, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a finding that 

Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act. Doc. 23, p.2; Tr. 21-28. On 

December 28, 2009, the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied 

Plaintiff‟s request for review of the hearing decision, thereby rending the ALJ‟s decision 

final. Doc. 23, p. 3; Tr. 3-5. 

Plaintiff‟s last date of insured status for disability benefits was December 31, 

2007. Tr. 23. Plaintiff was 52 years of age on December 31, 2007, is a high school 

graduate, and has a past relevant work as a bookkeeper and traffic clerk. Doc. 23, p.3; 

Tr. 26. 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 1 of 16
The Administrative Law Judge determined that Plaintiff was not disabled and had 

a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform low-end semi-skilled light work, with 

the exception that Plaintiff can only occasionally reach overhead. Tr. 24. The ALJ found 

that the Plaintiff “had the following severe impairments: obesity, degenerative disc 

disease of the lumbar spine, arthritis of the knees, shoulder pain and carpal tunnel 

syndrome,” but concluded the impairments did not equal the listing of 20 CFR Part 404, 

Subpart P, Appendix 1, either alone or in combination. Tr. 23-24. 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff‟s “medically determinable impairments could 

reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however the [Plaintiff‟s] 

statements concerning intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are 

not credible [to the extent they conflict with the residual functional capacity].” Tr. 25. 

The ALJ found that the residual functional capacity allowed the performance of 

Plaintiff‟s past relevant work as well as other work which exists in significant numbers in 

the national economy such as ticket seller, and parking lot attendant. Tr. 26-27. 

The ALJ also found that in reviewing the “objective medical evidence in the 

record,” Plaintiff failed to establish a medical condition that “could reasonably be 

expected to produce incapacitating pain.” The ALJ noted that Plaintiff failed to attend 

physical therapy as recommended,

1 made inconsistent statements regarding her activities 

of daily living, and that no doctor had recommended surgery or had found that Plaintiff 

was completely unable to work. Tr. 25-26. 

 

1

Failure to follow prescribed treatment, without good reason, could result in the finding of not disabled. 20 C.F.R § 

404.1530. 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 2 of 16
Standard of Review

This court must determine whether the Commissioner‟s decision is supported by 

substantial evidence in the record and premised upon correct legal principles. Chester

v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). “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.” Bloodsworth v. Heckler,

703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted); Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d

1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). “The Commissioner‟s factual findings are conclusive if

supported by substantial evidence.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir.

2002). “If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence we must

affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232,

1240, n. 8 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The court must give “substantial

deference to the Commissioner‟s decision.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211

(11th Cir. 2005). “A „substantial evidence‟ standard, however, does not permit a court to

uphold the Secretary‟s decision by referring only to those parts of the record which

support the ALJ. A reviewing court must view the entire record and take account of

evidence in the record which detracts from the evidence relied on by the ALJ.” Tieniber

v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 1983). “Unless the Secretary has analyzed all 

evidence and has sufficiently explained the weight he has given to obviously probative 

exhibits, to say that his decision is supported by substantial evidence approaches an 

abdication of the court's „duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 3 of 16
the conclusions reached are rational.‟” Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 

1981) (citations omitted).

A disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment of such severity that the

claimant is not only unable to do past relevant work, “but cannot, considering his age,

education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work

which exists in the national economy . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). A disability is an

“inability 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). Both the “impairment” and the “inability” must

be expected to last not less than 12 months. Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 122 S.Ct. 

1265, 1272, 152 L.Ed.2d 330 (2002).

The Commissioner analyzes a claim in five steps. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. A 

finding of disability or no disability at any step renders further evaluation necessary. The 

steps are: 

1. Is the individual currently engaged in substantial gainful activity?

2. Does the individual have any severe impairments?

3. Does the individual have any severe impairments that meet or equal those 

listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R. Part 404?

4. Does the individual have any impairments which prevent past relevant work?

5. Do the individual's impairments prevent other work?

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 4 of 16
A positive finding at step one or a negative finding at step two results in 

disapproval of the application for benefits. A positive finding at step three results in 

approval of the application for benefits. At step four, the claimant bears the burden of 

establishing a severe impairment that precludes the performance of past relevant work. If 

the claimant carries this burden, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to 

establish that despite the claimant's impairments, the claimant is able to perform other 

work in the national economy. Chester, 792 F.2d at 131; MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 

1050,1052 (11th Cir. 1986). If the Commissioner carries this burden, the claimant must 

prove that he or she cannot perform the work suggested by the Commissioner. Hale v.

Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987).

Evidence from the Administrative Hearing

Plaintiff testified that her past work consisted of being a traffic clerk and a 

bookkeeper. A traffic clerk position consists of scheduling television commercials for a 

local station and requires “sitting at a desk” and “working on the computer all day.” Tr. 

334. Plaintiff also testified that as recently as a few weeks before the hearing, she was 

employed twenty hours a week by her church as a bookkeeper, for an organization called 

Youth In Action, Inc. Tr. 335; Tr. 104. In 2000, Plaintiff told her physician Roger

Gamad, MD, that she worked in a flower shop, although this past-work experience does 

not appear elsewhere in the record. Tr. 297. 

Plaintiff stated that she could not continue the type of work she had done in the 

past because “continuous sitting” makes her legs and hands go numb and results in severe 

low back pain. Tr. 337-38. Plaintiff testified that doctors had not recommended surgery 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 5 of 16
for her back, but that she took injections which had the side effects of dizziness and 

drowsiness. Tr. 338-339. Plaintiff rated the pain in her back as an eight on a scale of 

ten. Tr. 339. 

Plaintiff also testified that arthritis in her knee inhibited her ability to walk and the 

pain rated as a nine on a scale of ten. Tr. 340-41. Plaintiff stated that she could stand for 

a period of up to fifteen minutes, although she would endure pain throughout. Tr. 348. 

Plaintiff testified that the knee and back pain caused the most restrictions on her ability to 

work. Tr. 347. 

Plaintiff also stated that carpal tunnel syndrome made it difficult for her to write or

type. Plaintiff claimed that she could perform these tasks for a time, up to fifteen

minutes, before her hands went numb. However, she stated that surgery had not been 

recommended as treatment. Rather, the medication Celebrex had been prescribed and 

provided minimal relief. Tr. 341-42. 

Plaintiff further testified that shoulder pain caused by tendonitis with a possible 

tear and spurs in the cervical spine were also medical problems. The shoulder pain rated 

a six on a scale of ten. Tr. 344; Tr. 347. 

As a result of all of Plaintiff‟s medical issues, Plaintiff stated that she could lift up 

to 10 pounds, including the weight of a gallon of milk. Tr. 345. 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 6 of 16
Medical Evidence2

As early as July 2000, Plaintiff reported bilateral wrist pain and numbness of the 

hands to her family physician Michael Rohan, MD. At this time Dr. Rohan noted that 

Plaintiff also had “mild limitation of the cervical spine,” but that motor function in the 

upper extremities was intact. Dr. Rohan also noted that “films of the writs [were] taken” 

and there were “no significant abnormalities.” Dr. Rohan diagnosed Plaintiff with carpel 

tunnel syndrome3and cervical spondylolysis.4 Tr. 252.

In September 2000, Dr. Rohan reported that Plaintiff‟s EMG/NCV5studies were 

normal and reaffirmed his diagnosis of cervical spondylolysis. Plaintiff was sent to 

physical therapy and was given Celebrex.6 In January 2001, Plaintiff reported to Dr. 

Rohan that she did not attend physical therapy because “they told her therapy was 

requested for her low back.” Dr. Rohan found “that hard to believe.” Again, Dr. Rohan 

recommended therapy and informed Plaintiff of the need to stretch. Dr. Rohan 

specifically stated that Plaintiff “may continue working.” Tr. 256. Also in January 2001, 

 

2 Descriptions of the purpose and effects of prescribed drugs are from PHYSICIANS' DESK REFERENCE, as 

available to the court on Westlaw, or PDRhealthTM, PHYSICIANS DESKTOP REFERENCE, found at 

< http://www.pdrhealth.com/drugs/drugs-index.aspx >. Information about medical terms and prescription drugs 

come from DORLAND'S MEDICAL DICTIONARY FOR HEALTHCARE CONSUMERS, available at: 

http://www.mercksource.com (Medical Dictionary link) or MEDLINE PLUS, found at

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html. Social Security Rulings can be found at: 

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/rulfind1.html. The pages at these websites are not attached to this Order as 

the information is relatively well-settled, the precise definitions are not at issue in this case, and the definitions are 

not likely to be in dispute.

3 Carpel tunnel syndrome is a condition caused by compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel and 

characterized especially by weakness, pain, and disturbances of sensation in the hand and fingers. 

4 Cervical spondylolysis is disintegration or dissolution of a vertebra.

5An EMG is an electromyogram. Electromyography is an electrodiagnostic technique for recording the extracellular 

activity of skeletal muscles at rest, during voluntary contractions, and during electrical stimulation. NCV is Nerve 

conduction velocity and tests the speed of electrical signals through a nerve. 

6 Celebrex is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used to treat acute (sudden) pain, menstrual cramps, 

pain and inflammation due to osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis of the spine (ankylosing 

spondylitis).

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 7 of 16
Plaintiff visited Dr. Gamad and complained of “severe pain” in the right elbow. Dr. 

Gamad diagnosed this as bursitis.7 Tr. 294. 

By February 2001, Plaintiff reported to Dr. Gamad that Celebrex had helped the 

pain in her right elbow, but that her right hip had been hurting. Tr. 291. In March 2001, 

Dr. Rohan noted that Plaintiff had “some swelling” in her wrists after she continue[ed] to 

report tingling in her hands. Dr. Rohan suggested “light [work] duty” and a limited work 

day of six hours. In May 2001, Dr. Rohan reaffirmed his diagnosis for carpel tunnel 

syndrome and suggested that Plaintiff may have had osteoarthritis at the base of her 

thumb. Dr. Rohan noted that Plaintiff “may continue to work six hour work day” as this 

“seems to be helping.” Tr. 255 

In October 2001, Dr. Rohan reported that an MRI revealed that Plaintiff had 

“mild” degenerative disc disease, “mild” tenderness in the carpal ligament of both wrists, 

and disc bulge and spondylolysis in her cervical spine. Tr. 254. Plaintiff complained of 

“tremendous amount of stress” at work, but Dr. Rohan still stated that she could perform 

“light work.” This work recommendation was affirmed by Mark M. Williams, MD, in a 

report for workers compensation in which he stated that Plaintiff was capable of 

performing receptionist-type duty for eight hours a day or data entry duty for six hours 

per day. Tr. 264. Here, Dr. Williams suggested that a 15% permanent impairment due to 

carpel tunnel was adequate. Tr. 264. Also in October 2001, Dr. Gamad reported that 

Plaintiff complained of pain and swelling in her left knee and leg that “occurred after she 

was digging a hole.” Tr. 289. 

 

7 Bursitis is inflammation of the fluid-filled sac (bursa) that lies between a tendon and skin, or between a tendon and 

bone. The condition may be acute or chronic.

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 8 of 16
In January 2002, Plaintiff was diagnosed with degenerative lumbar disc disease 

with possible ruptured disc. Plaintiff was prescribed Darvocet8for pain and Zanaflex9as 

a muscle relaxer. At this time, Plaintiff‟s x-rays showed spurring in her lumbar. Tr. 253. 

In March 2002, Dr. Rohan suggested that Plaintiff attend massage therapy to reduce pain 

and noted spurring in the cervical spine. Tr. 252. In April 2002, Dr. Rohan noted that 

sensory and motor function was normal in Plaintiff‟s hands. In September 2002, Dr. 

Rohan noted that Plaintiff reported that Aleve was helping her pain, and Dr. Rohan 

suggested that she “continue symptomatic treatment” with Naprosyn.10 Tr. 250. 

In January 2003, Dr. Rohan again diagnosed carpel tunnel and “possible anterior 

inner osseous nerve syndrome.” Dr. Rohan stated that Plaintiff was “capable of doing 

some sort of work.” Tr. 249. Dr. Rohan suggested that Plaintiff may need “carpel tunnel 

release”11 depending on the results of new NCV study. 

In November 2003, Dr. Gamad reported that Plaintiff continued to complain of leg 

pain, but that Plaintiff denied “any tingling or numbness.” 

In August 2005, Plaintiff visited Dr. Gamad and was diagnosed with arthritis in 

both knees. Tr. 206. By December 7, 2005, following a fall, Plaintiff‟s right shoulder 

had full range of motion and Dr. Rohan suspected rotator cuff tendonitis and possible 

tear. Tr. 184; Tr. 248. 

 

8 Darvocet contains two medicines, acetaminophen and propoxyphene, and is used to relieve mild to moderate pain.

9 Zanaflex is used to control muscle spasms that interfere with daily activities.

10 Naprosyn is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used to treat pain, swelling, and inflammation from 

medical conditions such as arthritis, tendonitis (inflammation of a tendon), gout (severe and painful inflammation of 

the joints), menstrual cramps, ankylosing spondylitis (arthritis of the spine), and bursitis (inflammation and pain 

around the joints).

11 Carpel tunnel release is surgery used to treat carpel tunnel syndrome. 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 9 of 16
On January 23, 2006, Dr. Michael Rohan diagnosed shoulder tendonitis. There 

were no definite tears, and Plaintiff had a full range of motion. Dr. Rohan recommended 

physical therapy and gave Plaintiff Celebrex. Tr. 183; Tr. 247. 

On July 7, 2006, Plaintiff visited Dr. Gamad, and complained of low-back pain. 

Plaintiff noted that the pain “does not radiate to the lower extremities.” Tr. 246. 

As part of the disability determination process, in July 2006, Ayman T. Aboulela, 

M.D., noted that “as far as work related activities, she can sit, stand and walk, however 

she cannot carry of lift heavy objects.” Tr. 261. In the Range of Motion Report, Plaintiff 

had full range of motion in all areas except lumbar spine forward flexion (60 degrees, 

with normal range of 0-90 degrees), lateral flexion (15 degrees with normal range of 0-25 

degrees) and extension (15 degrees with normal range of 0-25 degrees). Tr. 258. 

On July 24, 2006, Plaintiff had x-rays taken of her lumbar and James 

Strohmenger. M.D., reported that there was “degenerative change,” and that Plaintiff had

“anterior spurring in the lower thoracic spine.” Dr. Strohmenger also noted that the disc 

spaces were normal and that Plaintiff had sclerosis. Tr. 242. 

On August 14, 2006, Plaintiff visited the Brain and Spine Center. Tr. 203-04. Tr. 

236. A MRI of spine and lumbar was taken on August 16, 2006, and it revealed 

“moderately advanced bilateral facet arthropathy”12 and “lumbar spine spondylosis.” 13 

Tr. 177; Tr. 187; Tr. 201; Tr. 237. 

On August 31, 2006, the results of a nerve conduction study of Plaintiff‟s back at 

the Brain and Spine Center were “normal.” The report stated that “there is no 

 

12 Arthropathy is a disease of the joint. 

13 Spindylosis is any of various degenerative diseases of the spine. 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 10 of 16
electrophysiologic evidence for lumbosacral radiculopathy.”14

 However, the report also 

stated that Plaintiff had “lower lumbar spondylosis” and “advanced facet arthropathy.” 

Plaintiff was referred to HealthSouth for aquatic and massage therapy. Tr. 189; Tr. 201; 

Tr. 239. 

On October 2, 2006, the Brain and Spine Center record noted that Plaintiff 

prescription for Lyrica15 had helped. The Center‟s record also noted that Plaintiff had not 

attended “massage therapy” or “aquatic therapy” as recommended because she could not 

find a location that would take her insurance. Tr. 199; Tr. 232. 

November 9, 2006, a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment was 

performed by Dr. Clarence Louis. That assessment found that the severity of Plaintiff‟s 

symptoms and the alleged effect on function is “not entirely consistent with the total 

medical and nonmedical evidence.” Tr. 228. In making this assessment, Dr. Louis relied 

upon medical notes from Plaintiff‟s treating physicians which contained the results from 

the MRI of the lumbar spine, the x-ray of the lumbar, the MRI of the right shoulder, and 

the NCV/EMG. Tr. 224-225. Dr. Louis reported that “some allegations and symptoms 

[are] disproportionate to the expected severity and duration that would be expected on 

basis of the [Plaintiff‟s] medically determinable impairments. Tr. 228. 

On December 26, 2006, Plaintiff reported to Dr. Gamad tenderness in her left 

elbow. Dr. Gamad advised Plaintiff that he would send her to an orthopedic doctor. She 

wanted to wait to be sent. Tr. 204. 

 

14 Radiculopathy is any pathological condition of the nerve roots. 

15 Lyrica is a medicine used to treat seizures, pain from damaged nerves (neuropathic pain) that occur from diabetes 

and shingles (painful rash caused by chickenpox virus), and fibromyalgia (widespread muscle pain)

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 11 of 16
On February 19, 2007, x-rays were taken and it was noted that “radiographic 

appearance of the left elbow is normal.” Tr. 186. 

On March 6, 2007, Stephanie Breland, ARNP, noted that Plaintiff‟s x-rays of the 

left arm were “normal” and that Plaintiff nevertheless continued to have pain in her arms. 

Plaintiff was cautioned that some of the medications she was taking had possible sedative 

effects. Tr. 195. An MRI of left elbow was conducted on May 8, 2007, and Dr. Karin 

Maddox diagnosed “mild tendinitis.” Tr. 162. On May 8, 2007, Bay Medical Center 

again diagnosed “mild tendinitis of left elbow.” 

Legal Analysis

Plaintiff argues that 1) the residual functional capacity finding conflicted with her 

relevant past work; 2) the ALJ failed to consider the severity of Plaintiff‟s carpel tunnel 

syndrome; and 3) the ALJ committed reversible error in not posing a complete 

hypothetical question to the vocational expert. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ‟s 

findings were supported by substantial evidence and must, therefore, be sustained. The 

issue presented is whether the ALJ‟s decision that the Plaintiff was not disabled, in light 

of her physical and mental condition, age, education, work experience, and residual 

functional capacity, is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 

1. ALJ’s Consideration of Plaintiff’s Carpal Tunnel Syndrome 

Plaintiff contends that that ALJ failed to consider the severity of her carpal tunnel 

syndrome when formulating the residual functional capacity. Doc. 23, p.10. This 

assertion is not supported by the record. 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 12 of 16
The record confirms that the ALJ specifically found that Plaintiff‟s “severe 

impairments” included carpel tunnel syndrome. Tr. 23. In making the RFC 

determination, the ALJ “considered all symptoms” and evaluated the “intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects” of those symptoms. Tr. 24-25. The ALJ noted

Plaintiff‟s testimony about the numbness in her hands and made specific mention of her

carpel tunnel syndrome for which no surgery had been recommended. Tr. 25. The ALJ 

found that although Plaintiff had “some degree of pain, the objective and other evidence 

simply does not establish that the pain is as disabling as the [Plaintiff] alleges.” Tr. 26. 

The evidence the ALJ considered in making this assessment, as it pertains to the 

carpal tunnel syndrome, included among other things the following: that Plaintiff had 

recently worked at her church and stopped work for reasons other than disability; that 

Plaintiff could lift weight equal to a gallon of milk; that Plaintiff made inconsistent 

statements regarding her daily living; that no treating or examining physician had stated 

that Plaintiff was unable to work; that the state agency medical consultant concluded that 

Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to work; and that no surgery had been 

recommended. Tr. 25-26. 

It is also important to note that Plaintiff testified, and the ALJ noted, that the knee 

and back pain, not the carpal tunnel, caused most restrictions on her ability to work. Tr. 

25; Tr. 347. 

These facts provide substantial evidence that the ALJ did not fail to consider the 

severity of Plaintiff‟s carpal tunnel syndrome. Rather, the facts show that the ALJ 

considered the severity and formulated an appropriate residual functional capacity to take 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 13 of 16
it into account. Tr. 26. That is, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional 

capacity to perform “light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except that [she] can 

only occasionally reach overhead. She requires a sit/stand option. In addition the 

[Plaintiff] is limited to unskilled or low-end semi skilled work.” Tr. 24.

This residual functional capacity recognizes that “unskilled light jobs are 

performed primarily in one location, with the ability to stand being more critical than the 

ability to walk. They require use of arms and hands to grasp and to hold and turn objects, 

and they generally do not require use of the fingers for fine activities to the extent 

required in much sedentary work.” SSR 83-10, 1983 SSR LEXIS 30 at *14, 1983 WL 

31251, at *6-6 (S.S.A.) (emphasis added). This Social Security Ruling supports the 

Defendant‟s position that the RFC took into account limitations caused by Plaintiff‟s 

carpal tunnel syndrome. 

2. RFC and Work Ability

The fourth step of the evaluation process determines whether the individual has 

any impairments which prevent past relevant work. If the individual is not able to 

perform past relevant work, the Commissioner may nevertheless meet the burden to 

establish that the individual‟s impairments do not prevent other work. 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1520 (a)(4)(iv-v). A finding that Plaintiff can either perform past work or can “make 

an adjustment to other work,” results in a not-disabled determination. Id. 

To help determine Plaintiff‟s work ability, the ALJ posed a hypothetical question 

to the vocational expert to “name some examples of [the] type of work” that would be 

“limited to a range of light work, which would need to accommodate a sit/stand option 

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 14 of 16
and occasional overhead reaching.” In addition, the ALJ required the vocational expert 

to “keep [the answer] to the unskilled or semi-skilled range of [specific vocational 

preparation].” Tr. 354. This description of work mirrors what the ALJ found to be 

Plaintiff‟s residual functional capacity.16 The vocational expert responded that he could 

name “various different job titles” that met the ALJ‟s request including “ticket seller” and

“parking lot attendant” which had significant employment in the local and national 

economy. Tr. 354-55. 

Plaintiff is correct that “in order for a vocational expert‟s testimony to constitute 

substantial evidence, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical question which comprises all of 

the claimant's impairments.” Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1227. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ 

erred by failing to pose a hypothetical question to the vocational expert that included any 

limitations imposed by the Plaintiff‟s carpel tunnel syndrome. Doc. 23, p. 12. The 

hypothetical question was proper because it contained the limitations of the residual 

functional capacity verbatim, and the residual functional capacity took into account the 

limitations of Plaintiff‟s carpal tunnel syndrome. See supra Section 1. 

The Commissioner‟s finding that Plaintiff could perform other work based upon 

the vocation expert‟s testimony, therefore, is supported by substantial evidence. As 

such, the burden shifts back to the Plaintiff to prove that she is unable to perform the jobs 

suggested. Hale, 831 F.2d at 1011 (11th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff has not refuted the finding. 

 

16 In this case, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform “light work as defined in 

20 CFR 404.1567(b) except that [she] can only occasionally reach overhead. She requires a sit/stand option. In 

addition the [Plaintiff] is limited to unskilled or low-end semi skilled work.” Tr. 24. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ 

failed to ask the vocational expert whether Plaintiff could “perform her past relevant work; [rather] he simply asked 

whether her past relevant work would allow for a sit stand option.” Doc. 23, p.10.

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 15 of 16
Plaintiff‟s final argument that the ALJ erred in determining that Plaintiff could 

return to her past relevant work is made moot by the proper finding that Plaintiff could 

perform other work because each of the five steps serve as an independent basis for 

disability determinations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. 

In sum, the Commissioner‟s decision is supported by substantial evidence that the 

residual functional capacity took into account the severity of Plaintiff‟s carpal tunnel 

syndrome, and that the questions posed to the vocational expert were proper and resulted 

in a correct finding that Plaintiff could perform other work. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Commissioner‟s Decision to deny Plaintiff‟s application for Social Security 

Benefits is AFFIRMED. 

2. The case is dismissed.

3. The Clerk is directed to close the file. 

ORDERED on May 3, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00024-RS-EMT Document 27 Filed 05/03/11 Page 16 of 16