IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK A. DAVIS, *

*

 Plaintiff, * CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00582-B

 *

vs. *

*

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, *

Commissioner of Social *

Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

ORDER

Plaintiff Derrick A. Davis (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) seeks 

judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security denying his claim for a period of disability, 

disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income 

under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

401, et seq., and 1381, et seq. On October 15, 2015, the 

parties consented to have the undersigned conduct any and all 

proceedings in this case. (Doc. 15). Thus, the action was 

referred to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings and order 

the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. Upon careful consideration 

of the administrative record and the memoranda of the parties, 

it is hereby ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be 

AFFIRMED.

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 22
2

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff protectively filed his applications for benefits

on October 12, 2011. (Tr. 162). Plaintiff alleged that he has

been disabled since September 1, 2009, due to degenerative disc 

disease, lumbar radiculopathy, hypertension, flat feet, 

depression, cholesterol, and post traumatic stress disorder

(“PTSD”). (Id. at 162, 168).

Plaintiff’s applications were denied and upon timely 

request, he was granted an administrative hearing before 

Administrative Law Judge Katie H. Pierce (hereinafter “ALJ”) on 

April 24, 2013. (Id. at 44). Plaintiff attended the hearing 

with his counsel and provided testimony related to his claims. 

(Id. at 47). A vocational expert (“VE”) also appeared at the 

hearing and provided testimony. (Id. at 58). On May 21, 2013, 

the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision finding that Plaintiff is 

not disabled. (Id. at 37). The Appeals Council denied 

Plaintiff’s request for review on November 7, 2014. (Id. at 1-

2). Therefore, the ALJ’s decision dated May 21, 2013, became 

the final decision of the Commissioner. 

Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Plaintiff 

timely filed the present civil action. (Doc. 1). The parties 

waived oral argument on October 15, 2015 (Doc. 14), and agree 

that this case is now ripe for judicial review and is properly 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 22
3

before this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 

1383(c)(3).

II. Issue on Appeal

1. Whether the ALJ erred in rejecting the 

opinions and findings of Plaintiff’s 

examining psychologist, Dr. Joseph G. 

Law, Jr.?

III. Factual Background

Plaintiff was born on March 28, 1984, and was twenty-nine 

years of age at the time of his administrative hearing on April 

24, 2013. (Tr. 42, 162). Plaintiff testified that he graduated 

from high school and attended college. (Id. at 47-48). He also

served in the military from 2002 to 2009. 1 (Id. at 48). In 

2010, following his military service, Plaintiff worked as a 

barber in a barber shop. (Id.). He also worked in 2009 as a 

ship fitter helper. (Id. at 49, 205). 

At his hearing, Plaintiff testified that the “primary 

problems” that interfere with him working now are PTSD, back 

pain, and the side effects of his medication (drowsiness). (Id.

at 49-50). According to Plaintiff, at the time of his hearing, 

he had been receiving mental health treatment for his PTSD 

through the VA and had been seeing a therapist about once a week 

for about a year and a half. (Id. at 49). With respect to his 

 1 In the military, Plaintiff served as a fuels propulsions mate, 

refueling aircraft and boats. (Tr. 48). 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 22
4

back pain, Plaintiff testified that the pain in his lower back

was a seven or eight on a ten-point pain scale, after taking his 

medication. (Id. at 55). Plaintiff testified that his 

treatment has consisted of a cortisone injection in his back and 

medications, including Lortab (for pain) and Baclofen (a muscle 

relaxer).2 (Id. at 53-54, 57-58).

Plaintiff testified that he lives with his wife, three 

children (ages eight, five, and two), and his sister. (Id. at 

51). He does not help with the children or the house work. 

(Id.). His routine consists of getting up in the morning after 

not sleeping well, brushing his teeth, taking a shower, and 

staying in his room. (Id.). Plaintiff testified that he can 

lift approximately five pounds regularly. (Id. at 52). He 

cannot bend. (Id.). He can stand for about fifteen minutes and 

can only walk about fifteen feet before needing to stop. (Id.

at 53-54). He uses a cane issued by the Veterans 

Administration, and he has a wheelchair and a walker as well. 

(Id. at 53, 190).

In his Function Report, Plaintiff stated that he needs help 

 2 Plaintiff’s medication list submitted to the Agency also 

included aspirin, Ketorolac Tromethamine (pain), Lidocaine patch

(pain), Lisinopril (high blood pressure), Lovastatin

(cholesterol), Meloxicam (pain), Methocarbamol (muscle relaxer), 

Methylprednisolone (anti-inflammatory), Omeprazole (reflux), 

Prazosin (nightmares), Sertraline (depression), and Trazodone

(insomnia). (Tr. 171). 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 4 of 22
5

with his personal needs such as dressing, bathing, grooming, and 

using the toilet. (Id. at 185). In addition, he does not drive 

and cannot go out alone because he needs assistance getting in 

and out of the car. (Id. at 187). He can count change but does 

not shop and cannot handle a bank account or pay bills. (Id.). 

In addition, Plaintiff reported that he has a short attention 

span, lacks focus, is forgetful, and has mood swings. (Id. at 

187-88). He no longer enjoys hobbies or interests but 

occasionally socializes with family. (Id. at 188). He has 

problems getting along with others because of anger and 

irritability. (Id. at 189). However, he can interact with 

authority figures “when need be” and has never been fired from a 

job because of problems getting along with other people. (Id.

at 190). Plaintiff does not handle stress well, but he is able 

to follow written and spoken instructions “within limits of 

activity involved.” (Id. at 189-90).

IV. Analysis

A. Standard of Review 

In reviewing claims brought under the Act, this Court’s 

role is a limited one. The Court’s review is limited to 

determining 1) whether the decision of the Secretary is 

supported by substantial evidence and 2) whether the correct 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 5 of 22
6

legal standards were applied. 3 Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 

1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). A court may not decide the facts 

anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that 

of the Commissioner. Sewell v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 1065, 1067 (11th 

Cir. 1986). The Commissioner’s findings of fact must be 

affirmed if they are based upon substantial evidence. Brown v. 

Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1233, 1235 (11th Cir. 1991); Bloodsworth v. 

Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding 

substantial evidence is defined as “more than a scintilla, but 

less than a preponderance” and consists of “such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.”). In determining whether substantial 

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

into account evidence favorable, as well as unfavorable, to the 

Commissioner’s decision. Chester v. Bowen, 792 F. 2d 129, 131 

(11th Cir. 1986); Short v. Apfel, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10163, *4

(S.D. Ala. June 14, 1999).

B. Discussion

An individual who applies for Social Security disability 

benefits must prove his or her disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1512, 416.912. Disability is defined as the “inability to 

engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any 

 3 This Court’s review of the Commissioner’s application of legal 

principles is plenary. Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999 (11th 

Cir. 1987).

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 6 of 22
7

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); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1505(a), 416.905(a). The Social Security regulations 

provide a five-step sequential evaluation process for 

determining if a claimant has proven his disability.4 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520, 416.920. 

In the case sub judice, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff 

 4 The claimant must first prove that he or she has not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity. The second step requires the 

claimant to prove that he or she has a severe impairment or 

combination of impairments. If, at the third step, the claimant 

proves that the impairment or combination of impairments meets 

or equals a listed impairment, then the claimant is 

automatically found disabled regardless of age, education, or 

work experience. If the claimant cannot prevail at the third 

step, he or she must proceed to the fourth step where the 

claimant must prove an inability to perform their past relevant 

work. Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001, 1005 (11th Cir. 1986). In 

evaluating whether the claimant has met this burden, the 

examiner must consider the following four factors: (1) objective 

medical facts and clinical findings; (2) diagnoses of examining 

physicians; (3) evidence of pain; and (4) the claimant’s age, 

education and work history. Id. Once a claimant meets this 

burden, it becomes the Commissioner’s burden to prove at the 

fifth step that the claimant is capable of engaging in another 

kind of substantial gainful employment which exists in

significant numbers in the national economy, given the 

claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and 

work history. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 836 (11th Cir. 

1985). If the Commissioner can demonstrate that there are such 

jobs the claimant can perform, the claimant must prove inability 

to perform those jobs in order to be found disabled. Jones v. 

Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). See also Hale v. 

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

Heckler, 749 F.2d 1562, 1564 (11th Cir. 1985)).

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 7 of 22
8

has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 2010,5

and that he has the severe impairments of degenerative disc 

disease of the lumbar spine, lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar 

stenosis, posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), major 

depressive disorder, and insomnia. (Tr. 24). The ALJ further 

found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination 

of impairments that meets or medically equals any of the listed 

impairments contained in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 

1. (Id. at 25). 

The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff retains the residual 

functional capacity (hereinafter “RFC”) to perform a range of 

light work, except that Plaintiff “can sit for 6 hours in an 8-

hour workday and stand or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. 

The claimant can lift and carry 10 pounds frequently, 20 pounds 

occasionally. The claimant can occasionally stoop, kneel, 

crouch, crawl, balance, and climb ramps and stairs. The 

claimant can occasionally push and pull leg controls. The 

claimant cannot climb ropes, ladders, or scaffolds. The 

claimant cannot operate automotive equipment or work around 

dangerous machinery. The claimant can understand, remember, and

 5 The ALJ found that Plaintiff had engaged in substantial gainful 

activity working as a barber from December 2009 through May 

2010, after his alleged onset date of September 1, 2009. (Tr. 

23). However, Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful 

activity since May 2010, when he stopped working as a barber. 

(Id.). 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 8 of 22
9

carry out simple, routine, repetitive tasks. The claimant can 

understand to carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral 

instructions involving a few concrete variables in or from 

standardized situations. The claimant cannot tolerate contact 

with the public. The claimant needs to work independently but 

can work in close proximity to coworkers and supervisors. The 

claimant can maintain concentration and attention for up to 2 

hours at a time. The claimant can occasionally adapt to changes 

in the work setting. The claimant can tolerate supervision, 

criticism, or instructions when given in a positive, 

nonthreatening manner. The claimant can perform goal oriented 

work but not production pace work.” (Id. at 26). The ALJ also

determined that while Plaintiff’s medically determinable 

impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged 

symptoms, his statements concerning the intensity, persistence 

and limiting effects of the alleged symptoms were only partially

credible for the reasons explained in the decision. (Id. at 

27).

Given Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is not 

capable of performing his past work as a ship fitter and 

aircraft technician. (Id. at 35). However, utilizing the 

testimony of a VE, the ALJ concluded that considering

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity for a range of light 

work, as well as his age, education and work experience, there 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 9 of 22
10

are other jobs existing in the national economy that Plaintiff 

is able to perform, such as “garment folder,”

“housekeeper/cleaner,” and “garment bagger,” all of which are 

classified as light and unskilled. (Id. at 36). Thus, the ALJ 

concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled. (Id. at 36-37 ).

The Court now considers the foregoing in light of the 

record in this case and the issues on appeal. 

1. Issues

A. Whether the ALJ erred in rejecting the 

opinions and findings of Plaintiff’s 

examining psychologist, Dr. Joseph G. 

Law, Jr.?

In this case, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in 

rejecting the opinions and findings of his examining 

psychologist, Dr. Joseph G. Law, Jr., contained in a mental 

status evaluation performed on April 17, 2013. Specifically, 

Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in assigning “little weight” 

to Dr. Law’s opinions that Plaintiff is unable to maintain 

gainful employment as a result of marked limitations in social 

and occupational functioning and in assigning “great weight” to 

the opinions of consulting psychologist, Dr. Jennifer L. Adams, 

Ph.D., that Plaintiff’s PTSD and depression cause only moderate 

symptoms and that he is able to understand and carry out 

instructions. (Doc. 9 at 2; Tr. 32, 34, 447, 610). The 

Commissioner counters that the ALJ properly weighed all of the 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 10 of 22
11

medical opinions in this case and that Dr. Law’s opinions are 

inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the case and, 

thus, were properly discredited. (Doc. 12 at 7). Defendant 

further argues that the opinions of Dr. Adams are consistent 

with the substantial evidence in the case and, thus, were 

properly afforded great weight. (Id.). Having carefully 

reviewed the record in this case, the Court agrees that 

Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

As part of the disability determination process, the ALJ is 

tasked with weighing the opinions and findings of treating, 

examining, and non-examining physicians. In reaching a 

decision, the ALJ must specify the weight given to different 

medical opinions and the reasons for doing so. See Winschel v. 

Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). 

The failure to do so is reversible error. See Williams v. 

Astrue, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12010, *4, 2009 WL 413541, *1 

(M.D. Fla. 2009).

When weighing the opinion of a treating physician, the 

ALJ must give the opinions “substantial weight,” unless good 

cause exists for not doing so. Costigan v. Commissioner, Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2827, *10, 2015 WL 795089, *4 

(11th Cir. Feb. 26, 2015) (citing Crawford v. Commissioner of 

Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004) and Broughton v. 

Heckler, 776 F.2d 960, 962 (11th Cir. 1985)). The opinion of “a 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 11 of 22
12

one-time examining physician — or psychologist,” on the other 

hand, is not entitled to the same deference as a treating 

physician. Petty v. Astrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24516, *50, 

2010 WL 989605, *14 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2010) (citing Crawford, 

363 F.3d at 1160). An ALJ is also “required to consider the 

opinions of non-examining state agency medical and psychological 

consultants because they ‘are highly qualified physicians and 

psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability 

evaluation.’” Milner v. Barnhart, 275 Fed. Appx. 947, 948 

(11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527(f)(2)(i)). “The ALJ may rely on opinions of nonexamining sources when they do not conflict with those of 

examining sources.” Id. (citing Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 

580, 584-85 (11th Cir. 1991)). 

Whether considering the opinions of treating, examining, or 

non-examining physicians, good cause exists to discredit the 

testimony of any medical source when it is contrary to or 

unsupported by the evidence of record. Phillips v. Barnhart, 

357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004). “Good cause may also 

exist where a doctor’s opinions are merely conclusory, 

inconsistent with the doctor’s medical records, or unsupported 

by objective medical evidence.” Hogan v. Astrue, 2012 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 108512, *8, 2012 WL 3155570, *3 (M.D. Ala. 2012). 

The ALJ is “free to reject the opinion of any physician when the 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 12 of 22
13

evidence supports a contrary conclusion.” Sryock v. Heckler, 

764 F.2d 834, 835 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (citation 

omitted); Adamo v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 365 Fed. Appx. 

209, 212 (11th Cir. 2010) (The ALJ may reject any medical 

opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding.).

In the present case, the record shows that at the request 

of Plaintiff’s attorney, Dr. Law conducted a mental status 

examination of Plaintiff on April 17, 2013, and administered 

several tests, including the Post Traumatic Checklist, the Beck 

Depression Inventory, and the Rey 16 Item Memory Test. 6 (Tr. 

605). Upon examination, Dr. Law found that Plaintiff was alert 

and oriented to time, place, and person; his speech was 

understandable and coherent; his behavior was appropriate to the 

situation; he denied hallucinations and delusions; his long term 

memory was in tact; when asked to follow simple, three-step

instructions, he complied and could remember all three steps; 

and his test results did not indicate malingering. (Id. at 

606). In addition, Dr. Law noted that Plaintiff’s mood was 

depressed; he readily admitted to feelings of anxiety, 

disappointment, confusion, anger, fear, frustration, tension, 

and depression; and he reported having difficulty sleeping and 

 6 The ALJ initially questioned Dr. Law’s credentials but 

ultimately treated Dr. Law as an acceptable medical source. 

(Tr. 34-35). 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 13 of 22
14

horrible nightmares. (Id.). Dr. Law diagnosed Plaintiff with 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (chronic due to military combat) 

and Major Depressive Disorder (without psychosis, secondary to 

chronic PTSD and pain). (Id. at 609). Dr. Law assigned 

Plaintiff a GAF score of 457 and opined that Plaintiff’s “ability 

to stay on task and to adapt to work settings is impaired by 

chronic pain as well as his PTSD/major depression with marked 

impairment.” (Id. at 610). Dr. Law opined that Plaintiff “is 

not adapting well and suffers from depression secondary to both 

pain and chronic PTSD. His PTSD symptoms have worsened since 

onset in September 2009 and are debilitating. . . . [H]e is not 

able to maintain gainful employment and has a total loss of 

access to the competitive labor market.” (Id.). Dr. Law also 

completed a Mental RFC Questionnaire, finding that Plaintiff has 

 7 A GAF score of 45 indicates serious symptoms. GAF (Global 

Assessment of Functioning) is a numeric scale (0 through 100) 

used by mental health clinicians that measures a patient’s 

overall level of psychological, social, and occupational 

functioning on a hypothetical continuum. A GAF score of 41-50 

indicates serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe 

obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) or serious social 

dysfunction (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job). A GAF 

score of 51-60 suggests moderate symptoms (e.g., flat affect and 

circumstantial speech, occasional panic attacks) or moderate 

difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., 

few friends, conflicts with peers or co-workers). A GAF score of 

61-70 is indicative of mild symptoms (e.g., depressed mood and 

mild insomnia) or some difficulty in social, occupational, or 

school functioning (e.g., occasional truancy, or theft within 

the household), but generally functioning pretty well, has some 

meaningful interpersonal relationships. See http://www.gafscore 

.com.

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 14 of 22
15

frequent deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace, 

repeated expected episodes of decompensation, and marked 

limitations in social functioning, understanding, carrying out,

and remembering instructions, responding appropriately to 

supervision, co-workers, and work pressures, performing 

repetitive tasks, and completing work related activities. (Id.

at 611-12). 

As the ALJ found, Dr. Law’s opinions related to Plaintiff’s 

mental impairments, including that Plaintiff has marked 

limitations in understanding, carrying out, and remembering

instructions, that he cannot concentrate or stay on task, and 

that his PTSD symptoms are debilitating, are undermined by his 

own findings that Plaintiff was alert and oriented, that his 

speech was understandable and coherent, that his long term 

memory was completely in tact, that he could read and follow a

command in a sentence, that he could remember three words and 

repeat them back to the examiner, and that when asked to follow 

simple, multi-step instructions, he complied and could remember 

all of the steps. (Id. at 606). 

In addition, Dr. Law’s opinions related to Plaintiff’s 

physical impairments, i.e., Plaintiff’s impairment from chronic 

pain which contributes significantly to his depression and his 

inability to stay on task and to adapt to work settings, are not 

based on any physical findings and are inconsistent with his Dr. 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 15 of 22
16

Law’s own acknowledgement that Plaintiff’s treatment records 

showed only lumbar sprain and degenerative disk disease at L4-L5 

causing “mild” stenosis. (Id. at 607, 610). Dr. Law’s opinions 

regarding the severity of Plaintiff’s chronic pain are also 

inconsistent with the remaining substantial evidence in the 

case. For example, Dr. Law references the MRI taken in June 

2011 which showed degenerative disk disease at L4-5 causing only 

“mild” central canal stenosis and bilateral neuroforaminal 

stenosis. (Id. at 239, 571) (emphasis added). In addition, xrays of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine taken in November 2011 show 

“normal position and alignment,” “no disc space narrowing,” “no 

spondylolysis,” and “normal lumbar spine.” (Id. at 228). Also, 

a physician’s assistant at the VA who evaluated Plaintiff’s 

complaints of back pain further opined that Plaintiff had 

“lumbar strain, resolved” with no radiculopathy and “no 

functional limitation;” “DDD L4-5 lumbar spine” with no 

radiculopathy and only “mild functional limitation.” (Id. at 

240-41). The ALJ correctly noted that neither Plaintiff’s 

treating physicians at the VA nor his non-VA treating 

orthopedist had imposed any functional limitations related to 

Plaintiff’s back. (Id. at 34, 594). To the contrary, 

Plaintiff’s recommended treatment consisted of physical therapy, 

injections, and medications. (Id. at 553, 566, 573, 580, 594). 

Likewise, Dr. Law’s opinions related to Plaintiff’s mental 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 16 of 22
17

impairments are inconsistent with the remaining substantial 

evidence in this case. The record shows that at the request of 

the Agency, Plaintiff was examined by psychological consultant, 

Dr. Jennifer L. Adams, Ph.D., on January 10, 2012. (Id. at

445). Dr. Adams observed that Plaintiff walked “with 

discomfort” and was using a walker, but, otherwise, he appeared 

“strong and in good health,” and “his posture was erect.” 

(Id.). 

Dr. Adams noted that Plaintiff’s speech was normal; his 

concentration and attention were normal; he was alert and 

oriented in all spheres; he was able to count backward from 20 

by 2s; he was able to spell the word WORLD backward; he was able 

to solve a simple mathematical equation involving change-making; 

his memory was normal; he could recall four digits forward and 

three digits backward; he could recall three objects immediately 

and all three after five minutes; he could recall the events of 

the day of the evaluation and the preceding few days; he could

recall remote events as well; his fund of information was 

normal; he could recall items in the news; he could name the 

current president and the preceding president; his abstraction 

was normal; he could interpret proverbs and do simple 

similarities; his thought processes were normal; there was no 

confusion; his thought content was normal; and his judgment and 

insight were adequate. (Id. at 445-46). Dr. Adams noted, 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 17 of 22
18

however, that Plaintiff’s mood was dysphoric and somewhat 

irritable, and his affect was flat. (Id.). 

Plaintiff reported to Dr. Adams that his activities are 

limited. According to Plaintiff, he largely spends the day in 

bed watching television, although he is able to take care of his 

activities of daily living with “some help” from his wife. (Id.

at 446).

Dr. Adams diagnosed Plaintiff with PTSD and Major 

Depressive Disorder and assigned a GAF score of 55. 8 (Id. at 

447). Dr. Adams opined that Plaintiff’s prognosis is “fair” and 

that he “would be expected to respond to mental health services, 

if he is willing to engage with the therapist.” (Id.). Dr. 

Adams summarized her evaluation as follows: 

[Plaintiff] is a 27 year-old veteran who was 

injured in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

In addition to physical injuries he seems to 

have suffered PTSD. He also seems to have 

developed some depression, likely in 

reaction to the adjustments he is having to 

make in his lifestyle as a result of his 

physical injuries and PTSD. [Plaintiff’s] 

intellectual functioning is likely in the 

Average range and he is able to manage any 

benefits he might obtain. His memory and 

concentration seem to be somewhat impaired, 

possibly from anxiety and depression or 

 8 As previously noted, a GAF score of 55 indicates moderate 

symptoms (e.g., flat affect and circumstantial speech, 

occasional panic attacks) or moderate difficulty in social, 

occupational, or school functioning (e.g., few friends, 

conflicts with peers or co-workers). See http://www.gafscore.

com.

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 18 of 22
19

medication. There is not a reference in the

medical records to a head injury. 

[Plaintiff] is not functioning as well as he 

probably should be and likely will in the 

future with mental health treatment. He is 

able to understand and carry out 

instructions, but he is probably not able to 

remember instructions reliably at this time. 

[Plaintiff] is probably not able to respond

appropriately to supervision, co-workers and 

work stresses at this time.

 

(Id. at 447) (emphasis in original).9 

While both Dr. Law and Dr. Adams diagnosed Plaintiff with 

PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, Dr. Law’s opinion that 

Plaintiff’s mental impairments have resulted in marked and 

debilitating limitations that preclude him from working is 

inconsistent with Dr. Adams’ findings that Plaintiff’s 

concentration, attention, memory, fund of information, thought 

processes, content, judgment, and insight are normal and 

adequate; that he is able to understand and carry out 

instructions (although he may not be able to remember 

instructions reliably); that his prognosis is fair; that his 

symptoms from his PTSD and depression are moderate; and that he 

would be expected to respond to mental health services. (Id. at 

446-47).

 9 Dr. Adams does not describe the nature of Plaintiff’s injuries 

while serving in the military, but, at his hearing, Plaintiff 

testified that he was working on a flight deck when a fuel hose

got caught on the deck and snatched him off his feet. Plaintiff 

testified that he landed on his back and has been having 

problems “ever since then.” (Tr. 50, 506). 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 19 of 22
20

As the ALJ found, Dr. Adams’ opinions that Plaintiff’s 

symptoms are moderate and that he is able to understand and 

carry out instructions are consistent with Plaintiff’s VA 

treatment records, which reflect a conservative level of 

treatment for his mental health impairments and essentially

normal mental status examinations with only moderate depression 

and anxiety. (Id. at 33-34). Indeed, the treatment notes of 

Patricia Schlottman, a social worker who began therapy with 

Plaintiff in 2012 for PTSD, repeatedly noted that Plaintiff was 

only “moderately” depressed,10 that his eye contact, insight, and 

judgment were good, that his thought processes were clear, and 

that his memory was intact. (Id. at 481, 483, 489, 493-94, 503, 

506, 508, 510, 514, 518-19, 522, 525, 531, 554, 734). In 

addition, Plaintiff’s treatment records show that he has never 

required in-patient psychiatric treatment or emergency room 

treatment for any mental health issue. (Id.).

Although Plaintiff criticizes the ALJ for referencing 

Plaintiff’s VA treatment records (including the fact that no 

 10 Early in the evaluation process at the VA, Plaintiff was 

administered the Beck Depression Inventory II test, and he 

scored in the “severely depressed” range. (Tr. 526). 

Subsequent to that time and throughout his treatment at the VA, 

the staff repeatedly found him to be only “moderately” 

depressed. (Id. at 481, 483, 489, 493-94, 503, 506, 508, 510, 

514, 518-19, 522, 525, 531, 554, 665, 672, 699, 708). On 

November 29, 2012, he was observed to be only “mildly” 

depressed. (Id. at 674).

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 20 of 22
21

treatment source at the VA has ever found that Plaintiff is 

disabled due to a mental impairment, nor has Plaintiff received 

a service connection disability for PTSD or depression), the 

fact remains that Plaintiff’s treatment records at the VA are 

relevant and do reflect a level of treatment that is consistent 

with Dr. Adam’s opinions detailed above and inconsistent with 

Dr. Law’s opinions that Plaintiff’s mental health impairment is 

debilitating. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ 

assigned the appropriate weight to both Dr. Law’s and Dr. Adams’ 

opinions. In addition, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC fully 

accommodates Plaintiff’s PTSD and depression (specifically, Dr. 

Adams’ findings that Plaintiff may not be able to reliably 

remember instructions or respond appropriately to supervision, 

co-workers, or work stresses) 11 by limiting Plaintiff to goal 

oriented work with only occasional changes in the work setting, 

carrying out uninvolved written or oral instructions with few 

concrete variables, and limiting his interaction with 

supervisors, co-workers, and the public. 12 In addition, the 

 11 Interestingly, as noted by the ALJ, Plaintiff reported no 

problems getting along with authority figures and denied ever 

being terminated from a job because of problems getting along 

with others. (Tr. 39, 194).

12 As previously discussed, the ALJ limited Plaintiff’s mental 

RFC as follows: “The claimant can understand, remember, and 

carry out simple, routine, repetitive tasks;” “can understand to 

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 21 of 22
22

Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC fully accommodates Plaintiff’s 

physical impairments related to his back pain. 13 (Id. at 26). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim must fail.

V. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth herein, and upon careful 

consideration of the administrative record and memoranda of the 

parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for a 

period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and 

supplemental security income be AFFIRMED.

DONE this 24th day of March, 2016.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions 

involving a few concrete variables in or from standardized

situations;” “cannot tolerate contact with the public;” “needs 

to work independently but can work in close proximity to 

coworkers and supervisors;” “can maintain concentration and 

attention for up to 2 hours at a time;” “can occasionally adapt 

to changes in the work setting;” “can tolerate supervision, 

criticism, or instructions when given in a positive, 

nonthreatening manner;” and “can perform goal oriented work but 

not production pace work.” (Tr. 26). 

13 The ALJ limited Plaintiff’s physical RFC as follows: Plaintiff 

“can sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday and stand or walk for 

6 hours in an 8-hour workday. The claimant can lift and carry 

10 pounds frequently, 20 pounds occasionally. The claimant can 

occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, balance, and climb

ramps and stairs. The claimant can occasionally push and pull 

leg controls. The claimant cannot climb ropes, ladders, or 

scaffolds. The claimant cannot operate automotive equipment or 

work around dangerous machinery.” (Tr. 26).

Case 1:14-cv-00582-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/16 Page 22 of 22