Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DANIEL C. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. 

_______________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to

the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rules 72.1(A), 72.2(D) and 72.3 of the local

rules of this court relating to review of administrative determinations under the

Social Security Act and related statutes. It is now before the court pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Act for review of a final determination of the

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying claimant Anderson’s

application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income

benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Act.

Upon review of the record before this court, it is the opinion of the

undersigned that the findings of fact and determinations of the Commissioner are

supported by substantial evidence; thus, the decision of the Commissioner should

be affirmed.

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 16
Page 2 of 16

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 2, 2007, Plaintiff, Daniel C. Anderson (“Mr. Anderson”), filed

applications for benefits claiming an onset of disability as of August 14, 2005 (tr.

104-105, 202-206, 212-219). The applications were denied initially and on

reconsideration, and Mr. Anderson requested a hearing before an administrative law

judge (“ALJ”) (tr. 106-117). A hearing was held on October 2, 2009 at which Mr.

Anderson was represented by counsel and testified (tr. 68-103). A vocational expert

also testified. Id. On January 13, 2010, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision (tr.

52-67), which due to a clerical error was later rescinded (tr. 171-172). On June 15,

2010, the ALJ held a supplemental hearing (tr. 30-51). Mr. Anderson and his

girlfriend testified. Id. Another vocational expert also testified. Id. The ALJ issued

another unfavorable decision on July 23, 2010 (tr. 11-29). Mr. Anderson requested

review by the Appeals Council submitting as additional evidence a “Representative

Brief” dated January 4, 2011 (tr. 4-10, 298-299). The Appeals Council declined review

on February 8, 2011 (tr. 1-3). The Commissioner has therefore made a final decision,

and the matter is subject to review by this court. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2007); Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.

1998). This timely appeal followed (doc. 1).

FINDINGS OF THE ALJ

Relative to the issues raised on this appeal, the ALJ found that Mr. Anderson

meets the insured status requirements of the Act; that he had not engaged in

substantial gainful activity since his claimed onset date; that he had severe

impairments of right healed clavicle fracture with nerve injury, status post open

femur fracture and IM rodding, right traumatic leg injury with below the knee

amputation, and status post right forearm fracture, but that he did not have an

impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled one of the

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 16
Page 3 of 16

impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; that he had the

residual functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work defined in

20 C.F.R. 20 404.1567(a) in that he can lift ten pounds and stand/walk for two hours

(altering his position at 2-hour intervals) while being restricted to the performance

of simple, routine and repetitive tasks; that he was not capable of performing any

past relevant work as a production assembler and solderer, but that there are jobs

that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that he can perform such

as call out operator, bonder semiconductor and space scheduler; and that he has

not been under a disability as defined in the Act from claimed onset date through the

date of the ALJ’s decision (tr. 16-24). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In Social Security appeals, this court must review de novo the legal principles

upon which the Commissioner's decision is based. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d

1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir.

1986)). There is no presumption that the Commissioner followed the appropriate

legal standards in deciding a claim for benefits, or that the legal conclusions

reached were valid. Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1996); Lewis v.

Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2002). Failure to either apply the correct law

or to provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the

proper legal analysis has been conducted mandates reversal. Ingram, 496 F.3d at

1260.

The court must also determine whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211 (citing Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc.

Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir. 2004)). Even if the proof preponderates

against the Commissioner’s decision, if supported by substantial evidence, it must

be affirmed. Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260; Miles, 84 F.3d at 1400. Substantial evidence

is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance, and encompasses such

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 3 of 16
Page 4 of 16

relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a

conclusion. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211 (citation omitted). In determining whether

substantial evidence exists, the court must view the record as a whole, taking into

account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the Secretary's decision. 

Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995). This limited review precludes

deciding the facts anew, making credibility determinations, or re-weighing the

evidence. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211 (citing Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233,

1239 (11th Cir.1983); Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1996). Findings

of fact of the Commissioner that are supported by substantial evidence are

conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260.

A disability is defined as 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). 

To qualify as a disability the physical or mental impairment must be so severe that

the claimant is not only unable to do his previous work, “but cannot, considering his

age, education, and work experience, engage in anyother kind of substantial gainful

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

The social security regulations establish a five-step evaluation process to

analyze claims for both SSI and disability insurance benefits. See Moore, 405 F.3d

at 1211; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (2009) (five-step determination for SSI); 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520 (2009) (five-step determination for DIB). A finding of disability or no

disability at any step renders further evaluation unnecessary. See 20 C.F.R. §

416.920; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The steps are:

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

2. Does the individual have any severe physical or mental

impairment that meets the duration requirement?

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 4 of 16
Page 5 of 16

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

equal those listed in Appendix 1 to subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Part

404 and meet the duration requirement?

4. Considering the individual’s residualfunctional capacity, can the

individual perform past relevant work? 

5. Can the individual perform other work given the individual’s

residual functional capacity, age, education and work

experience? 

Id.

These regulations place a very heavy burden on the claimant to demonstrate

both a qualifying impairment or disability and an inability to perform past relevant

work. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211 (citing Spencer v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 1090, 1093 (11th

Cir.1985)). If the claimant establishes such an impairment, the burden shifts to the

Commissioner at step 5 to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy

which, given the claimant’s impairments, the claimant can perform. Doughty v.

Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001); Allen v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 600, 601 (11th

Cir. 1987). If the Commissioner carries this burden, claimant must prove that she

cannot perform the work suggested by the Commissioner. Doughty, 245 F.3d at

1278 n.2; Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987). 

PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL HISTORY

In 1988 Mr. Anderson had a very serious motor vehicle accident, which

resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee, traumatic brain injury,

comminuted fractures of the mid radius and ulna with metallic plates and screws in

place (right forearm), colostomy, fractures of both inferior pubic rami, diastasis of

left sacroiliac joint, pelvic fracture with extensive perineal laceration, right femur

fracture, and scalp laceration (tr. 435-550). He was treated at the Yale New Haven

Hospital from March 11, 1988 to November 1, 1988. Id. 

On December 17, 2001, Mr. Anderson obtained a prescription from Dr. Collins

at Gaylord Hospital, Inc. in Connecticut for a modification of his right leg prosthesis

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 5 of 16
Page 6 of 16

(tr. 301). Mr. Anderson then treated with Dr. Kemal at the Hanger Prosthetics &

Orthotics, Inc. (“Hanger”) in New London, Connecticut from December 21, 2001 to

July 26, 2002 for evaluation of existing right below knee prosthesis (tr. 303-314). On

the December 21, 2001 visit the doctor noted:

an open area on the posterior popliteal aspect of his limb. . .this has

been a long-standing problem in which [Mr. Anderson] has flare ups

and incidences where he cannot wear his prosthesis due to the area

swelling up. It is quite apparent [Mr. Anderson] has developed a

continuous, infected bursa that fills with puss and then drains, causing

pain and discomfort. 

Tr. 314. The doctor discussed the importance of hygiene and of wearing a shrinker

at night, and recommended Mr. Anderson “be in touch with a plastic or orthopedic

surgeon in an effort to have this bursa excised and reduce the possibility of it flaring

up again. Id. 

On March 29, 2002, Mr. Anderson returned to Hanger and was “fit with a

replacement silicone suction socket” to provide him the proper fit, function and

comfort to allow him to continue with his activities of daily living (tr. 310-313). He

then received a prescription for a new prosthesis on May 8, 2002 from Dr. Kemal at

Hanger (tr. 302). Mr. Anderson had various appointments in order to get fitted for the

new prosthesis (tr. 303-309). On May 13, 2002, the doctor’s notes mention that Mr.

Anderson underwent several tests and MRI’s, but that it was determined that his

condition was chronic and the surgeons decided that he would not benefit from

surgery (tr. 309). On July 12, 2002, he received the new prosthesis, and reported

being pleased with its fit and comfort (tr. 307). He went back on July 26, 2002, so

that Dr. Kemal could modify the prosthesis slightly in order to provide him comfort

(tr. 303). All of this treatment occurred prior to the claimed onset of disability.

On July 29, 2005, Mr. Anderson was involved in a motorcycle accident where

he sustained fractures to his right clavicle and right scapula (tr. 315-331). He was

treated at the Yale New Haven Hospital where he had CT scans of his chest, thoracic

and lumbar spines with and without contrast, which showed no injuries to his chest

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 6 of 16
Page 7 of 16

or back (tr. 315-316). He also had x-rays to of his right shoulder and left tibia, which

showed the fractures of his right clavicle but no injury to his left tibia (tr. 320-321). 

He underwent a CT scan of his brain and cervical spine without contrast, which

presented “[n]o evidence of an acute traumatic injury to the brain or cervical spine”

(tr. 322-323). He had x-rays of his pelvis, which showed “[n]o acute osseus injury”

(tr. 324). Lastly, he had blood work done, which tested positive for alcohol (tr. 325-

331). This treatment also occurred prior to the claimed onset of disability.

Mr. Anderson treated with Dr. Chaudhryat the New England Retina Associates

from March 15, 2004 (prior to claimed onset disability) to September 2, 2005 (tr. 340-

346). Mr. Anderson was referred to Dr. Chaudhry on an emergency basis due to a

rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in his right eye (tr. 346). On March 18, 2004, Mr.

Anderson underwent surgeryto repair the retina without complications (tr. 344-345). 

Mr. Anderson went several more times to see Dr. Chaudhry, who reported good

progress (tr. 341-343). On his February 17, 2005 notes, Dr. Chaudhry stated that Mr.

Anderson’s vision with correction was 20/40 OD and 20/25 OS (tr. 341). Dr.

Chaudhry then referred Mr. Anderson back to Dr. Parker at the Thames Eye Group, 1

P.C. for eye pressure checks, and he was treated there from February 25, 2005 (prior

to claimed onset disability) to September 2, 2005 (tr. 332-339).

Mr. Anderson returned to Yale New Haven Hospital to treat at its Orthopaedic

Hand Clinic from August 3, 2005 (prior to claimed onset disability) to November 21,

2005 (tr. 347-358). On August 24, 2005, he had cervical spine x-rays, which showed

“minimal neurocentral lipping of C5/C6 on the right. . . with a questionable area of

erosion at the exit foramina[, but t]he vertebral body heights and disc spaces [we]re

relatively preserved [and n]o other significant abnormalities [we]re seen.” Tr. 355. 

That same day, the doctor noted that Mr. Anderson had a partial amputation of his

right middle finger four weeks earlier, but had no complaints (tr. 353). On September

Dr. Chaudry’s notes mention that Dr. Parker referred Mr. Anderson to him, but no medical records were 1

submitted of that prior treatment with Dr. Parker.

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 7 of 16
Page 8 of 16

21, 2005, Mr. Anderson had x-rays of his clavicles, which showed “[m]inimal interval

healing of the right clavicle fracture.” Tr. 352. On his last visit of November 21,

2005, Mr. Anderson underwent an evaluation of right shoulder weakness or

neuropathy by having an EMG/NCV, which showed electrodiagnostic evidence of

severe right axillary neuropathy, severe right proximal radial neuropathy, mild-tomoderate bilateral median neuropathy at the wrists (CTS), and bilateral ulnar

neuropathies across the elbows (tr. 347). 

On August 8, 2007, Mr. Anderson was brought to the emergency room of Gulf

Breeze Hospital in handcuffs by a Santa Rosa Sheriff’s Officer because he was

struck with a fist and had a laceration to his lip that required sutures (tr. 364-368). 

He was treated and released. Id. He returned on August 19, 2007 to have the

sutures removed (tr. 359-363). The records show that Mr. Anderson was working

full-time at Servpro and living locally (tr. 359-368).

After filing his application for benefits, Mr. Anderson was evaluated by Dr.

Henry Boilini, Internal Medicine, on December 8, 2007 (tr. 369-373). In Dr. Boilini’s

Consultative Examination Report he reported Mr. Anderson’s past medical history

of a 1988 motor vehicle accident that resulted in severe injuries, a four month

hospitalization including two months in a coma (tr. 369). These severe past injuries

were “a below the knee amputation on the right leg, a broken right femur, abdominal

injury requiring a colonotomy for one year, traumatic brain injuries, and right arm

fracture.” Id. Dr. Boilini also mentioned Mr. Anderson’s retinal detachment and loss

of the tip of his right third finger (tr. 370). Dr. Boilini noted that Mr. Anderson was

alleging disability due to right leg amputation (tr. 369). Mr. Anderson’s primary

complaint was his “chronic right leg pain secondary to his prosthesis” and also

“poor reliability at work due to his poor concentration and memory.” Id. 

Dr. Boilini conducted a physical examination of Mr. Anderson and found him

well-dressed, well-nourished, and in no acute distress (tr. 371). Mr. Anderson

ambulated steadily with slight difficulty having to favor his right leg, but did not use

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 8 of 16
Page 9 of 16

assistive devices. Id. Dr. Boilini examined Mr. Anderson’s areas of amputation

(right leg and right middle finger) and “[t]he skin was intact and in good condition

at both amputation sites.” Id. “There was significant tenderness to palpation at the

amputation site of the right knee” but there were “no signs of erythema, swelling or

infection at the site.” Id. In a vision test with his glasses, Mr. Anderson had 20/70

in right eye and 20/40 in the left one. Id. The grip strength test for both arms was

5/5. Id. As to their range of motion, the right shoulder abduction was only to 90

degrees, but forward and backward elevation as well as internal and external

rotations were normal. Id. Aside from the aforementioned, Dr. Boilini’s impression

was that Mr. Anderson’s “main limitation from the amputation is the tenderness at

the prosthesis site.” Tr. 372. 

As to Mr. Anderson’s functional status, Dr. Boilini stated that Mr. Anderson

could dress and feed himself, stand for 20 minutes before the pain in his right leg

became severe, walk for 50 yards before the pain is severe, sit for long periods of

time but requiring readjusting of his leg, lift 100 pounds without problems, and help

around his house with sweeping, mopping, vacuuming, cooking and shopping. Id. 

Mr. Anderson was not taking any medications at the time (tr. 370).

On May 8, 2008, Mr. Anderson went for a routine eye exam at Navarre Family

Eye Care (tr. 391-392). He also treated with Dr. Andrew Kortz for glaucoma from

April 30, 2008 to April 28, 2009 (tr. 393-394, 422-434).

Mr. Anderson treated at the Good Samaritan Health Clinic from April 29, 2008

to November 25, 2008 (tr. 411-421). His main complaints were right shoulder and

right knee pain. Id. Most notes state the right stump looked good, but that his

prosthesis was worn out and too loose. Id. There were several medications listed: 

paxil, timolol, lumigan, lexapro, and timoptic, which treat depression and glaucoma. 

Id.

On June 10, 2008, Mr. Anderson was referred by the Good Samaritan Health

Clinic for x-rays of his right shoulder and right knee (tr. 398). Mr. Anderson went on

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 9 of 16
Page 10 of 16

June 12, 2008 to Gulf Breeze Hospital for the diagnostic tests, and the radiology

report stated:

Right shoulderthree views: Degenerative arthrosis of the glenohumeral

and AC joint. Healed fracture distal 1/3 right clavicle. No findings of

dislocation or acute post-traumatic findings.

Right knee two views: Below-the-knee amputation. No soft tissue gas

calcification. No findings of osteomyelitis. Distal femoral nail is

unremarkable. The distal femur is intact. No obvious joint effusion.

Tr. 396-401. 

Mr. Anderson was referred to Dr. Susan A. Danahy, who conducted a

psychological evaluation on June 26, 2008 (tr. 402-410). The Consultative

Examination Report detailed that Mr. Anderson walked the steps to her office

without complaint, had a somewhat flat affect, and his chief complaint was “I can’t

remember things; I forget where I’m going or where I am and I can’t figure out the

day of the week.” Id. Mr. Anderson gave as an example having a great deal of

difficulty remembering appointments. Id. He also complained of constant pain in

his amputated leg and being unable walk far or stand for long. Id. He, however,

admitted to not taking any medication for pain. Id. 

During the mental status evaluation, Dr. Danahy concluded that his memory

“seemed reasonablygood.” Id. He exhibited neuropsychological problems, andhad

difficulty concentrating on directions, which had to be repeated to him. Id. He was

patient and persistent throughout the testing. Id. His ability to form rapport was

normal, insight and judgment were grossly intact, but he had specific difficulty with

short-term memory. Id. 

As to his occupational background, Dr. Danahy noted that Mr. Anderson

“actually did more skilled labor after his wreck than before.” Id. He stated that his

major impediment to work is his memory, but admitted “that he could be successful

if he did the same thing ‘over and over.’” Id. He does not think he could do the same

kind of job as before because he is having more pain in his leg. Id. In regards to his

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 10 of 16
Page 11 of 16

activities of daily living, Mr. Anderson can cook, clean, and go out with his friends

to community activities. Id. 

Mr. Anderson tested in the low average range of intelligence with a Verbal IQ

of 90, Performance IQ of 86, and Full-Scale IQ of 88, which places him in the 21st

percentile level. Id. The testing also “took about twice as long as average to

complete” and that “psychomotor tempo would be a problem in many job settings.” 

Id. Nevertheless, Dr. Danahy concluded that: 

Mr. Anderson would have a variety of occupational options, including

positions requiring skilled and semi-skilled work [and h]is only

limitations would be for anything requiring good abstraction ability or

good academic skills. 

Id.

Mr. Anderson underwent an orthopaedic evaluation on November 5, 2009 by

Dr. Leo Chen, Orthopaedic Surgeon (tr. 551-563). Dr. Chen took x-rays of his right

shoulder, right knee and right forearm. Id. Dr. Chen listed Mr. Anderson’s injuries

and surgeries from the 1988 motor vehicle accident (open femur fracture,right lower

extremity injury that necessitated right below knee amputation, right forearm

fracture, bowel injuries requiring colostomy, closed head injuries) and the more

recent motorcycle accident (right clavicle fracture and right middle finger traumatic

amputation). Id. Dr. Chen confirmed the injuries with the x-rays taken. Id.

Mr. Anderson’s chief complaint to Dr. Chen was “[r]ight hip and leg pain, right

shoulder pain and weakness, and right arm pain.” Id. Dr. Chen noted that Mr.

Anderson used a crutch to ambulate. Id. Mr. Anderson’s prosthesis has been

broken for some time and it is taped to hold it in place. Id. Mr. Anderson explained

the occasional break down of his stump, including intermittent tenderness and

infection, but Dr. Chen noted that it was not at that moment. Id. As to Mr.

Anderson’s right arm injury, Dr. Chen noted that his EMG showed severe right

axillary nerve neuropraxia. Id. Mr. Anderson denied taking any medications. Id. 

 During the physical examination, Dr. Chen found Mr. Anderson a well

developed and well nourished male in no acute distress. Id. Mr. Anderson has full

range of motion of his neck, back, left upper and lower extremities, right upper

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 11 of 16
Page 12 of 16

extremity, and right knee. Id. His right shoulder showed “some numbness over his

axillary distribution on the right lateral shoulder area,. . .atrophy of his deltoid and

some atrophy of his supraspinatus and infraspinatus fossa posteriorly.” Id. Thus,

Dr. Chen determined that his active range of motion was 80 degrees in forward

flexion and 70 degrees in abduction. Id. Despite the right middle finger partial

amputation, Mr. Anderson has full range of motion with grip strength of 4/5 in his

right hand; the left hand has 5/5 grip strength. Id. Mr. Anderson is “able to perform

fine manipulation with his hands,” including removing his prosthesis, use of

crutches, and button/unbutton his shirt. Id. As to his right stump, Dr. Chen noted

some tenderness in the posterior medial aspect, but no gross skin break down or

signs of inflammation, discoloration or deformity. Id. Dr. Chen described it as

“benign.” Id. Mr. Anderson also had pain with deep palpation around his right

proximal thigh. Id. Mr. Anderson’s “gait is antalgic on the right . . . with a significant

limp favoring the right leg.” Id. 

Dr. Chen concluded that Mr. Anderson “would have no mental or

environmental work related restrictions,” but “his ability to perform physical activity

would be significantly limited by his multiple orthopaedic injuries, especially his

right [below the knee amputation] and his right shoulder pain and weakness due to

the axillary nerve palsy.” Id. Dr. Chen delineated Mr. Anderson’s physical abilities

and restrictions in a capacity form. Id. Mr. Anderson can only lift and carry up to 10

pounds occasionally; he can sit 30 minutes, stand/walk for 10 minutes without

interruption; he can sit a total of 6 hours in an 8 work day, stand and walk for 1 hour

total in an 8 hour work day; he has full use of his left hand; with his right hand he

can never reach overhead, can reach otherwise occasionally, and can handle, finger,

feel, push/pull frequently; he can operate foot controls with left foot continuously;

he can occasionally climb stairs and ramps, balance, stopp, kneel and crouch, but

can never climb ladders/scaffolds or crawl; he can tolerate exposure to humidity and

wetness, dust, odors, fumes and pulmonary irritants, extreme cold, extreme heat,

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 12 of 16
Page 13 of 16

vibrations, and very loud noise on a continuous basis, can frequently tolerate

unprotected heights, occasionally tolerate moving mechanical parts, but can never

operate a motor vehicle ; as to activities Mr. Anderson can: shop; travel without a 2

companion; ambulate without using a wheelchair, walker, 2 canes or 2 crutches; use

standard public transportation; prepare a simple meal and feed himself; care for his

personal hygiene; and sort, handle or use paper/files; he cannot walk a block at a

reasonable pace on rough or uneven surfaces or climb a few steps at a reasonable

pace with the use of a single hand rail. Id. Dr. Chen concluded that the above

limitations have lasted or will last for 12 consecutive months. Id. 

DISCUSSION

Mr. Anderson contends that the ALJ erred in failing to identify all of his severe

impairments, that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination is not based

on substantial competent evidence, and that the ALJ’s credibility finding is not

based on substantial competent evidence (doc. 8, pp. 15- 24). The Commissioner

argues that the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and must,

therefore, be sustained (doc. 9, pp. 5-9). The issue thus presented is whether the

ALJ’s decision that Mr. Anderson was not disabled, in light of his physical and

mental condition, age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity,

is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

1. Failure to identify all severe impairments

Mr. Anderson argues that the ALJ’s failure to list his traumatic brain injury in 

his list of severe impairments in step 3 of her analysis (tr. 16) means she neglected

to analyze it in her assessment of his disability and determination of his ability to

work (doc. 8, p. 15). However, as pointed out by the Commissioner, Mr. Anderson

This limitation is suspect since Mr. Anderson throughout his interviews, medical records, and sworn 2

testimony before the ALJ admitted driving on a regular basis.

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 13 of 16
Page 14 of 16

concedes that the ALJ discussed at length Dr. Danahy’s assessment of his mental

capacity and impairments (tr. 17). The ALJ also mentioned it when discussing Dr.

Boilini’s evaluation: “poor reliabilitydue to poor concentration and memory” (tr. 16). 

In the step 5 analysis, the ALJ again discussed Dr. Danahy’s diagnosis of “amnestic

disorder possibly secondary to a closed head injury in 1988.” Tr. 21. The ALJ,

however, reasonably focused on Dr. Danahy’s conclusion that Mr. Anderson could

occupy a variety of skilled and semi-skilled positions in which he performed simple,

routine and repetitive tasks . Id. Thus, Mr. Anderson’s argument that the ALJ 3

ignored his traumatic brain injury in her assessment in steps 3 and 5 of the analysis

is without merit. 

2. ALJ’s Residual Functional Capacity Determination 

Mr. Andersonalleges thatthe ALJ’s residual functional capacitydetermination

is not supported by substantial competent evidence because the ALJ failed to

address certain medical opinions (doc. 8, p. 17)

“Although required to develop the record fully and fairly, an ALJ is not

required to discuss every piece of evidence submitted.” Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383,

386 (8th Cir.1998); Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 966 (8th Cir. 2010). The ALJ

discussed thoroughly Dr. Chen’s orthopaedic evaluation and placed determinative

weight to his opinion (tr. 20-22). The ALJ supported her reasoning with the objective

record evidence because no treating or consultative physician opined that Mr.

Anderson was disabled; for example, the sporadic notes by the Good Samaritan

Health Clinic. Id. As discussed above, the ALJ also took into account Dr. Danahy’s

psychological evaluation and her conclusions that from a mental standpoint Mr.

Anderson can perform simple, routine and repetitive tasks. Id. The ALJ also cited

Dr. Boilini’s evaluation. Id. From a review of the record, the ALJ analyzed it as a

Mr. Anderson admitted to Dr. Danahy “that he could be successful if he did the same thing ‘over and 3

over.’” Tr. 405.

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 14 of 16
Page 15 of 16

whole and relied on the most thorough and recent evaluations of Mr. Anderson in

support of her determination of his residual functional capacity. All of the medical

records or conditions that Mr. Anderson contends were not addressed were

included in the numerous evaluations that the ALJ cited in her opinion. Therefore,

this argument is also unavailing. The ALJ supported her residual functional capacity

with substantial competent evidence as required, and as such her decision is

conclusive. 

3. ALJ’s credibility finding

Mr. Anderson argues that the ALJ failed to follow this Circuit’s three-part pain

standard when she discredited his subjective pain complaints (doc. 8, p. 18). The

ALJ found that Mr. Anderson’s impairments could cause the alleged symptoms, but

did not find credible Mr. Anderson’s claims as to the symptoms’ intensity,

persistence and limiting effects because they were inconsistent with her residual

functional capacity assessment (tr. 20). The ALJ noted that Mr. Anderson did not

use any assistive devices such as cane or crutches when he attended the hearing

before her. Id. 

The ALJ explained that she considered all of the documentation and Mr.

Anderson’s testimony, as well as his parents’ statements, that he had to stay off his

leg, but reasoned that this limitation is consistent performing sedentary work. Id. 

Moreover, the ALJ explained that Mr. Anderson’s admissions that he is not under

medical treatment or taking any pain medications supported her conclusion as to

his lack of credibility regarding his pain complaints (tr. 20-21). In fact, Mr. Anderson

admits that he “has not had a treating doctor. . .specifically state the limitations

caused by his pain.” Doc. 8 at 19. “Nothing in the record suggest that [Mr.

Anderson’s] impairments have been incapable of being alleviated or controlled with

the proper and regular use of prescription medications. . . .” Tr. 21. There is also

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 15 of 16
Page 16 of 16

nothing in the record to support any allegation that Mr. Anderson had problems with

side effects of medication, when taken. Id. 

Mr. Anderson is able to drive regularly, clean his house, prepare his meals,

and go shopping. This also underscores his pain claims as noted by the ALJ. Mr.

Anderson’s lack of consistent treatment, and its complete lack thereof after 2008,

confirms the ALJ’s conclusion that his pain is not to a disabling degree. Contrary

to Mr. Anderon’s argument, this discussion was sufficient to explain why the ALJ

found his pain complaints to be less than credible.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the decision of the

Commissioner be AFFIRMED, that this action be DISMISSED and that the clerk be

directed to close the file. 

At Pensacola, Florida this 23rd day of April, 2012.

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline

that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and

does not control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. 

Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28

U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No: 3:11cv173/WS/MD

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 11 Filed 04/23/12 Page 16 of 16