1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VINCENT E. THOMAS, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. :

 : CIVIL ACTION 14-0445-M

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Social Security Commissioner, :

 :

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), 

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security 

ruling denying a claim for disability insurance benefits and 

Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter SSI) (Docs. 1, 13). 

The parties filed written consent and this action was referred 

to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings 

and order judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 18). Oral argument was waived (Doc. 

19). After considering the administrative record and memoranda 

of the parties, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision 

be AFFIRMED and 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

Case 1:14-cv-00445-M Document 20 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 7
2

Cir. 1983), which must be supported by substantial evidence. 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial 

evidence 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).

The Plaintiff applied for disability benefits and SSI on 

August 22, 2011 and August 9, 2011, respectively, alleging a 

disability onset date of May 17, 2011 (Tr. 20, 140-49). At the 

administrative hearing, Thomas was thirty-seven years old, had 

completed a high school education (Tr. 39), and had previous 

work experience as an electrician’s helper and tank cleaner (Tr. 

61). Plaintiff alleges disability due to Type I Diabetes

Mellitus, loss of vision in his right eye, gastroparesis, and 

nephritic neuropathy (Doc. 13 Fact Sheet).

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, 

determining that although Thomas could not return to his past 

relevant work, there were specific medium-exertion jobs that he

could perform (Tr. 20-27). Plaintiff requested review of the 

hearing decision (Tr. 14-16), but the Appeals Council denied it 

(Tr. 1-5).

Plaintiff claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not 

supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Thomas alleges 

Case 1:14-cv-00445-M Document 20 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 7
3

the single claim that the ALJ did not properly consider the 

opinions of his treating physician (Doc. 13). Defendant has 

responded to—and denies—this claim (Doc. 14). The relevant 

record evidence follows.1

On February 24, 2011, Thomas was seen at the Mobile County 

Department of Health, seeking prescription refills for his 

diabetes and hypertension; his blood pressure, which was 

significantly elevated, was due to not taking his medications 

for one and one-half weeks (Tr. 219-22). Otherwise, the exam 

was essentially normal; Plaintiff’s diabetes was characterized 

as uncontrolled. Dental care was recommended but declined.

On March 2, Dr. Karl Whiting, O.D., at Franklin Primary 

Vision Center, noted that Thomas had 5/600 vision in the right 

eye and 20/40 in the left eye, uncorrected; the left eye 

improved to 20/25 with correction (Tr. 352). There was 

longstanding retinal detachment in the right eye. It was 

recommended that Plaintiff wear safety frames full-time to 

protect his good eye. 

On April 18, Thomas was admitted for two nights to the 

University of South Alabama Medical Center (hereinafter USAMC) 

for intractable abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting (Tr. 238-

55). The attending physician diagnosed him to have diabetic 

																																																							 1As Thomas asserts his disability began on May 17, 2011, the 

Court will not review evidence that pre-dates that by a long period or 

medical evidence unrelated to his claims in this action.

Case 1:14-cv-00445-M Document 20 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 7
4

gastroparesis, but concluded that although his diabetes was 

formerly under control, Thomas had brought this hospitalization 

on himself by failing to follow his prescribed diabetic regimen; 

Plaintiff indicated that he was not going to change in spite of 

advice to do so.

On November 8, Dr. Edward C. Baranano, Ophthalmologist, 

examined Plaintiff and found his right eye blind due to past 

retinal detachment; his left eye was stable (Tr. 268-72). 

Thomas was restricted to driving with side view mirrors.

On November 11, Plaintiff went to the Emergency Room at 

USAMC and was treated for hypoglycemia (Tr. 273-77)

On November 17, Dr. Alan Jay Sherman performed a 

consultative examination, finding Thomas’s vision was 20/30 in 

the left eye, 20/40 in both eyes, and right eye blindness (Tr. 

279-85). The Doctor noted finger-to-thumb fine motor movement 

was mildly clumsy bilaterally; upper extremity strength to 

resistance was 4/5. Plaintiff had good range of motion 

throughout except for mild decreased flexion of the left knee 

with pain; grip strength was normal though dexterity was mildly 

restricted. Because of Thomas’s medical history of diabetes, 

blindness, and hypertension, Sherman did not think that he could 

work full-time.

On January 16, 2012, Plaintiff was admitted to USAMC for a 

week following complaints of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal 

Case 1:14-cv-00445-M Document 20 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 7
5

pain for two days (Tr. 286-329). He was diagnosed to have 

shigellosis, a bacterial infection.

On February 22, 2012, Thomas went to Franklin Primary 

Health Care to get prescriptions refilled (Tr. 332-35). On 

March 15, was seen for nocturnal incontinence (Tr. 330-21).

On June 24, ER records from Springhill Medical Center show 

that Plaintiff was treated for hypoglycemia (Tr. 336-41). 

Thomas reported that he had taken his insulin but forgot to eat 

at a contemporaneous time.

On July 19, Dr. James O. Devaney, a family practitioner 

with the Franklin Clinic, completed a Diabetes Questionnaire 

indicating that Plaintiff’s blood sugar levels were under good 

control within normal limits (Tr. 342-43). The Doctor stated 

that Plaintiff had diabetic neuropathy associated with renal 

function and would have moderately severe-to-severe limitations 

in working. 

This concludes the Court’s summary of the evidence.

Thomas claims that the ALJ did not accord proper legal 

weight to the opinions, diagnoses and medical evidence of his 

treating physician, Dr. Devaney. It should be noted that 

"although the opinion of an examining physician is generally 

entitled to more weight than the opinion of a non-examining 

physician, the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any 

physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion." 

Case 1:14-cv-00445-M Document 20 Filed 04/17/15 Page 5 of 7
6

Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981);2 see 

also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (2014).

In his decision, the ALJ summarized the record evidence 

before finding Plaintiff capable of performing specific mediumexertion jobs; in reaching this conclusion, the ALJ relied on 

the testimony of a vocational expert (Tr. 22-27). The ALJ 

discounted Dr. Sherman’s opinions, a conclusion not challenged 

in this action. The ALJ also found that Thomas’s testimony 

regarding the severity of his limitations was not supported by 

the evidence; Plaintiff has not challenged this finding either.

The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Devaney’s opinion that 

Thomas would be moderately severe-to-severely limited in his 

ability to work, finding evidence lacking to support the 

conclusion. He specifically noted that Devaney’s opinion was 

premised on his finding that Thomas had neuropathy associated 

with renal function even though Plaintiff had testified at the 

hearing that he did not have neuropathy. 

The Court finds substantial support for the ALJ’s 

conclusion. Dr. Devaney’s treatment notes provide no evidence 

of limitation and provide barely any evidence beyond 

prescription information. As a whole, the record demonstrates 

that Thomas has not properly cared for his impairments, causing 

																																																							

					 2The Eleventh Circuit, in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 

1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopted as precedent decisions 

of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

Case 1:14-cv-00445-M Document 20 Filed 04/17/15 Page 6 of 7
7

him to seek emergency intervention more than once. The Court 

further notes that, by his own reports, Thomas’s daily 

activities rebut his treating physician’s suggestion of 

inability.

Thomas has raised a single claim here; that claim lacks 

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 17th day of April, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00445-M Document 20 Filed 04/17/15 Page 7 of 7