IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAISE J. WOODS, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

 CIVIL ACTION 09-493-M

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of

Social Security, : 

Defendant. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

 In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), Plaintiff seeks

judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which denied

a claim for Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter SSI). 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.22). Oral argument was heard

on February 22, 2010. Upon consideration of the administrative

record, the memoranda of the parties, and oral argument, it is

Ordered that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and

that this action be DISMISSED. 

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.

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 10
2

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).

At the time of the most recent administrative hearing,

Plaintiff was forty-four years old, had completed a high school

education, and had previous work experience as a day care worker

(Doc. 17 Fact Sheet). In claiming benefits, Plaintiff alleges

disability due to arthritis, diabetes, and obesity (id.). 

The Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on May 15, 2006

(Tr. 116-20). Benefits were denied following a hearing by an

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who determined that although she

could not perform her past relevant work, Woods was capable of

performing specified sedentary work existing in the national

economy (Tr. 14-33). Plaintiff requested review of the hearing

decision (Tr. 11-12) by the Appeals Council, but it was denied

(Tr. 1-3).

Plaintiff claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not

supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Woods alleges

that: (1) Her impairments meet or equal the requirements of

Listing 1.02; and (2) she cannot perform a full range of

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 10
3

sedentary work (Doc. 17). Defendant has responded to—and

denies—these claims (Doc. 18). The relevant medical evidence of

record follows.

Dr. Michael C. Madden examined Plaintiff on August 29, 2006,

noting that while she was in no apparent distress, she had ankle

edema (Tr. 210-15). Further examination indicated that the

lumbar area of her back was tender; straight leg raises from a

sitting position were negative bilaterally. She had a slight

limp during the exam, though she had a normal gait while exiting

the clinic. Madden also noted the following:

When she attempted to squat and rise she was

only able to flex her knees approximately 90

degrees. She also has some crepitus with

flexion and extension of her knees. She

claims to use an assistive device consisting

of a walker. That is not with her today. 

She did not receive a prescription for this. 

She claims that she does use it to walk

inside the house. Her gait without the

assistive devise, has a slight limp favoring

her right leg. The assistive device does not

appear to be required to walk at all. It

does not appear to be required for prolonged,

continuous walking only. It does not appear

to be required for special situations such as

being outdoors or on uneven surfaces. There

are no findings on physical exam which would

support the use of a walker. 

(Tr. 211). An x-ray of the right knee revealed no fractures or

dislocations, though there was “joint space narrowing as well as

moderate osteophyte formation noted” (Tr. 213). Dr. Madden

completed a chart which indicated normal range of motion in all

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 3 of 10
4

areas except that she had decreased (110 instead of 150) knee

flexion bilaterally (Tr. 214-15). The doctor’s impression was

arthritis in her knee and shoulders, diabetes, and depression

though he found that her “ability to do work-related activities

such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, handling

objects, hearing, speaking and traveling appears to be adequate

for normal duty” (Tr. 212). 

On July 10, 2008, Dr. William A. Crotwell III, an

orthopaedic surgeon, examined Woods who complained of pain across

her lower back and in her right knee (Tr. 280-83). Crotwell

noted that she ambulated without assistance and reported that she

cooked and cleaned three days of seven, could drive locally, and

walk two or three blocks. The doctor noted the following during

his examination: 

She did not have any difficulty taking

off her shoes, bending, flexing. On exam of

the lower extremities, toe and heel walk

normal. Forward flexion 70 to 80, extension

30 to 40. Deep tendon reflexes +2 in the

patella and Achilles. Sensory is normal. 

Motor is 5/5. Straight leg raise sitting 90

degrees right and left, just pain in her knee

on the right not in the back. Hip rotation

negative. Straight leg raise lying 80

degrees right and left with increased pain

with plantar flexion and decreased pain with

dorsiflexion both right and left, which is

inconsistent. Calves measure 18 inches each,

thighs 29-1/2 inches each.

Examination of the left knee, range of

motion 0 to 110. Negative pivot shift and

McMurray. The collateral cruciate ligaments

seem to be intact. The patella is

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 4 of 10
5

centralized. She has a varus deformity of 15

to 20 degrees, mild effusion, some

crepitance. The right knee goes from -10 to

90, questionable pivot shift. You can’t even

do it because it is too painful. Negative

McMurray. The patella is centralized. There

is a varus deformity of 15 to 20 degrees, a

large effusion, crepitance. A little bit of

laxity, grade I of the medial collateral

ligament.

X-RAYS: X-rays of the lumbar spine showed

arthritis of the lumbar spine, degenerative

disc disease at 4-5, L5-S1 with a huge spur

at L5-S1.

X-rays of the left knee, AP and lateral

showed medial joint space collapse with a

varus deformity of 10 or 15 degrees with

arthritis throughout the knee.

X-rays of the right knee showed severe

arthritis with medial joint space collapse

severe, much worse than the left with a varus

deformity of 15 to 20 degrees with

calcification over the medical condyle of the

femur and possibly a loose body in that area

also, or in the right knee, worse

patellofemoral arthritis.

(Tr. 281). Dr. Crotwell’s impression was lumbar degenerative

disc disease with no radiculopathy, bilateral arthritis of the

knees (worse on the rights), and contracture of the right knee. 

The Orthopaedist’s recommendation was as follows: 

I think this patient could carry out very

light duty, could definitely carry out

sedentary. I do not believe the patient can

do any sort of ambulation at all. I think

she could go to and from the work place but

would have to be limited; no stairs, no

ladders, limited inclines, able to move

around slightly during the day but would be

very limited. She could definitely do a

sedentary job. I think she could carry out

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 5 of 10
6

an eight hour work day. 

(Tr. 282). The doctor also completed a physical capacities

evaluation in which he indicated that Plaintiff had the ability

to sit one and stand one hour at a time but could sit for eight

hours and stand for two hours during an eight-hour day; she could

not walk for any period of time (Tr. 283). Crotwell found that

Plaintiff was capable of lifting up to five pounds continuously

and twenty-five pounds occasionally, but could carry up to five

pounds continuously, ten pounds frequently, and twenty-five

pounds occasionally; he did not think Woods could use her right

foot for repetitive movement. The doctor also said that while

she could occasionally bend and frequently reach, she should

never squat, crawl, or climb.

Plaintiff testified at the first evidentiary hearing that

she used a walker three or four days a week to get in and out of

bed and to bathe (Tr. 295). She was able to vacuum, dust a

little, and cook; she could groom and dress herself (Tr. 299). 

Woods could drive; she shopped with her son, riding in the buggy

because she could not walk around the store for that long (Tr.

299-300). Plaintiff could walk ten-to-fifteen minutes at a time

after which she needed to sit for an hour or two (Tr. 300). At

the second hearing, five months later, Woods testified that her

condition was worse as she needed a walker to clean at home and

to walk around (Tr. 47-48). She could only walk for half a block

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 6 of 10
7

(Tr. 48); Plaintiff had trouble getting in and out of the tub

(Tr. 51). Woods was still able to drive (Tr. 51).

At the second evidentiary hearing, the ALJ questioned a

Vocational Expert (hereinafter VE) who stated that he had been

present to hear Plaintiff’s testimony and had reviewed the record

(Tr. 53-58). The VE testified that Dr. Madden’s report would not

restrict Woods in any way and that she could perform her past

work; he went on to say, however, that the assessment made by Dr.

Crotwell would not allow Plaintiff to perform her past work, but

that she could do limited sedentary work. Specifically, Woods

would be capable of performing the work of an assembler,

surveillance monitor, and information clerk. Upon further

questioning by both Plaintiff’s attorney and the ALJ, the VE

stated that these jobs took into consideration Dr. Crotwell’s

finding that she could get back and forth to work, but could do

no walking once she got to her job (Tr. 58-60).

The ALJ gave determinative evidentiary weight to the

findings and opinions of Dr. Crotwell (Tr. 30). Based on

Crotwell’s findings and the testimony of the VE, the ALJ found

that Woods could not return to her past relevant work, but could

perform the sedentary jobs of assembler, surveillance monitor,

and information clerk (Tr. 31-32). The ALJ specifically found

that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal the

requirements of Listing 1.02 (Tr. 20). 

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 7 of 10
8

In bringing this action, Plaintiff first claims that she is

disabled under Listing 1.02, “major dysfunction of a joint(s)

(due to any cause),” the requirements of which are set out as

follows: 

Characterized by gross anatomical deformity

(e.g., subluxation, contracture, bony or

fibrous ankylosis, instability) and chronic

joint pain and stiffness with signs of

limitation of motion or other abnormal motion

of the affected joint(s), and findings on

appropriate medically acceptable imaging of

joint space narrowing, bony destruction, or

ankylosis of the affected joint(s). With: 

A. Involvement of one major peripheral

weight-bearing joint (i.e., hip, knee, or

ankle), resulting in inability to ambulate,

effectively, as defined in 1.00B2b;

or

B. Involvement of one major peripheral

joint in each upper extremity (i.e.,

shoulder, elbow, or wrist-hand), as defined

in 1.00B2c. 

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Listing 1.02 (2009). 

The Court further notes that the regulations, in 1.00B2b, state

that “[t]o ambulate effectively, individuals must be capable of

sustaining a reasonable walking pace over a sufficient distance

to be able to carry out activities of daily living. They must

have the ability to travel without companion assistance to and

from a place of employment or school.” 20 C.F.R. Part 404,

Subpart P, Appendix 1, Listing 1.00B2b (2009). 

The Court finds substantial support for the ALJ’s conclusion

that she does not meet the requirements of this Listing. Both

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 8 of 10
9

Drs. Madden and Crotwell noted Woods’s ability to walk without an

assistive device. Though Plaintiff points to Dr. Crotwell’s

finding that “she could not do any ambulation at all” (see Doc.

17, pp. 4-5), the Court notes that the balance of the doctor’s

conclusion was that she could move around slightly during the day

once she arrived at work (Tr. 282). This is consistent with the

statements in Listing 1.00B2b. More importantly, Dr. Crotwell

unequivocally stated that it was his opinion that Woods was

capable of working an eight-hour workday, albeit sedentary work. 

The testimony of the VE clearly accommodates Dr. Crotwell’s

conclusions about Woods’s abilities. Plaintiff’s claim otherwise

is without merit.

Plaintiff’s second claim is that she cannot perform a full

range of sedentary work. The Court notes the following:

Sedentary work involves lifting no more than

10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting

or carrying articles like docket files,

ledgers, and small tools. Although a

sedentary job is defined as one which

involves sitting, a certain amount of walking

and standing is often necessary in carrying

out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if

walking and standing are required

occasionally and other sedentary criteria are

met. 

20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a) (2009).

The Court notes that the ALJ did not find that Woods could

perform a full range of sedentary work. Specifically, the ALJ

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 9 of 10
10

found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to

perform sedentary work, but that she was limited as found by Dr.

Crotwell in his physical capacities evaluation (Tr. 21; cf. Tr.

283). The ALJ, in adopting these restrictions, inherently

acknowledges that Woods is incapable of performing a full range

of sedentary work. Nevertheless, this in no way diminishes the

ultimate finding that Plaintiff is capable of working. Any claim

otherwise is without merit.

Woods has raised two claims in bringing this action. They

are both without merit. Upon consideration of the entire record,

the Court finds "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Perales, 402

U.S. at 401. Therefore, it is Ordered that the Secretary's

decision be AFFIRMED, see Fortenberry v. Harris, 612 F.2d 947,

950 (5th Cir. 1980), and that this action be DISMISSED. 

Judgment will be entered by separate Order. 

DONE this 2nd day of March, 2010.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 23 Filed 03/02/10 Page 10 of 10