Holder v. Colvin (CONSENT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on June 8, 2015. (scn, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
KRISTY CLEA HOLDER,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-369-CSC
On March 30, 2011, Kristy Clea Holder filed a Title XVI application for supplemental
security income, alleging disability beginning March 30, 2011. (R. 17, 37). The claim was
denied initially on May 11, 2011. On June 29, 2011, Holder filed a written request for
hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Following a hearing held on October
9, 2012, ALJ Carl B. Watson issued a decision denying the claim on October 25, 2012. (R.
17, 29). The Appeals Council denied Holder’s subsequent request for review (R. 1-6). The
ALJ’s decision consequently became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”).1 See Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). The
case is now before the court for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g) and 1383(c)(3).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the
Pursuant to the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub.L. No.
103-296, 108 Stat. 1464, the functions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to Social
Security matters were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security.
United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 8; Doc. 9). Based on the court’s review of the record
in this case and the briefs of the parties, the court concludes that the decision of the
Commissioner should be affirmed.
II. Standard of Review
Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) a person is entitled to disability benefits when the
person is unable 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[.]
To make this determination,2 the Commissioner employs a five-step, sequential
evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
(1) Is the claimant presently unemployed?
(2) Is the claimant’s impairment severe?
(3) Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal one of the specific
impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1?
(4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation?
(5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within the economy?
An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads either to the next
question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative
answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of “not
McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986).3
A “physical or mental impairment” is one resulting from anatomical, physiological, or psychological
abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.
McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir. 1986) is a supplemental security income case (SSI).
The same sequence applies to disability insurance benefits. See Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 525 n.3
(1990). Cases arising under Title II are appropriately cited as authority in Title XVI cases. See, e.g., Sullivan,
The standard of review of the Commissioner’s decision is a limited one. This court
must find the Commissioner’s decision conclusive if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “Substantial
evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. It is such relevant evidence
as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). A reviewing court may not look only to those parts of
the record which supports the decision of the ALJ, but instead must view the record in its
entirety and take account of evidence which detracts from the evidence relied on by the ALJ.
Hillsman v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 1179 (11th Cir. 1986).
[The court must] . . . scrutinize the record in its entirety to determine the
reasonableness of the [Commissioner’s] . . . factual findings . . . No similar
presumption of validity attaches to the [Commissioner’s] . . . legal conclusions,
including determination of the proper standards to be applied in evaluating
Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999 (11th Cir. 1987).
III. The Issues
A. Introduction. Holder was thirty-one on the date of the hearing before the ALJ.
(R. 38). Her birthday is February 9, 1981. (R. 38). She has a high school education. (R.
38). Her past work was as a nursing assistant in an assisted living facility. (R. 39-40, 53).
Holder alleges that she is disabled due to low back pain, obesity, anxiety, depression,
migraine headaches, neck pain, right shoulder tendonitis, and low vision. (R. 19-20).
493 U.S. at 525 n.3; Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1981) (Unit A).
The Findings of the ALJ
The ALJ found that Holder has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc
disease of the lumbar spine, obesity, anxiety and depression. (R. 19). The ALJ also found
nonsevere impairments of headaches, right shoulder tendonitis, and slight vision loss. (R.
19-20). The ALJ found that Holder does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in
20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. 20). The ALJ found that Holder “has the
residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except
that she cannot climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; she can occasionally climb ramps and
stairs; she can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; she must avoid working at
unprotected heights; and she is limited to the performance of simple, routine, repetitive tasks
in an environment where there is only occasionally interaction with the general public and
where changes are infrequent and are introduced gradually.” (R. 22). The ALJ found that
Holder could not perform her past relevant work, but that she could perform other jobs that
exist in significant numbers in the national economy. (R. 28). Accordingly, the ALJ
concluded that Holder was not disabled. (R. 29).
Holder presents the following issue for review: Whether the ALJ committed an error
of law by crediting the opinion of the Commissioner’s nonexamining consulting physician
and rejecting the opinion of Holder’s examining physician.
A disability claimant bears the initial burden of demonstrating an inability to return
to his past work. Lucas v. Sullivan, 918 F.2d 1567 (11 th Cir. 1990). In determining whether
the claimant has satisfied this burden, the Commissioner is guided by four factors: (1)
objective medical facts or clinical findings, (2) diagnoses of examining physicians, (3)
subjective evidence of pain and disability, e.g., the testimony of the claimant and his family
or friends, and (4) the claimant's age, education, and work history. Tieniber v. Heckler, 720
F.2d 1251 (11th Cir. 1983). The ALJ must conscientiously probe into, inquire of and explore
all relevant facts to elicit both favorable and unfavorable facts for review. Cowart v.
Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735–36 (11th Cir. 1981). The ALJ must also state, with sufficient
specificity, the reasons for his decision referencing the plaintiff's impairments.
Any such decision by the Commissioner of Social Security which involves a
determination of disability and which is in whole or in part unfavorable to such
individual shall contain a statement of the case, in understandable language,
setting forth a discussion of the evidence, and stating the Commissioner’s
determination and the reason or reasons upon which it is based.
42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1).
The ALJ did not commit an error of law by crediting the opinion of the
Commissioner’s nonexamining consulting physician, and substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s decision.
On May 9, 2011, as a nonexamining consultative physician for the Commissioner, Dr.
Robert Estock, M.D., performed the psychiatric review technique (R. 256-68) at the initial
level of consideration. At that stage of review, Dr. Estock had the overall responsibility for
assessing medical severity. 20 CFR § 416.920a(e)(1). Holder argues that, because Dr.
Estock was a nonexamining consulting physician who did not have access to Holder’s
complete mental health records, including a March 8, 2012 psychological evaluation
completed by Dr. Robert Storjohann, Ph.D., the ALJ erred as a matter of law by crediting the
psychiatric review technique completed by Dr. Estock. (R. 256, 268). See 20 CFR §
416.927(c)(3) (“[B]ecause nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship
with you, the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they
provide supporting explanations for their opinions. We will evaluate the degree to which
these opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim, including opinions of
treating and other examining sources.”).
Holder’s argument in this regard is a non sequitur. The ALJ did not credit or rely on
the opinion of Dr. Estock. At the administrative law judge hearing level, the ALJ must
independently perform the psychiatric review technique and document the basis of that
independent assessment in the opinion. 20 CFR § 416.920a(e)(4). In this case, the ALJ
independently reviewed the record and set forth the evidence supporting his conclusions,
which consisted of medical evidence and Holder’s own testimony and statements about her
impairments and daily activities, but did not include or even mention Dr. Estock’s opinion.4
The court notes not only that ALJ’s independent psychiatric review technique contained no
documented reference to Dr. Estock’s assessment, but also that the ALJ’s assessment is entirely different
from Dr. Estock’s. (R. 20-21, R. 256-68). For example, Dr. Estock did not consider Holder’s impairment
of depression at all; further, he found that Holder’s anxiety was not a severe impairment because her anxiety
caused only mild restriction in activities of daily living, no restriction in maintaining social functioning,
(R. 21-22). In fact, the ALJ did not refer to or rely on Dr. Estock’s opinion at any point in
the sequential analysis, and, at every step in the sequential analysis, the ALJ’s analysis is
more favorable to Holder than Dr. Estock’s analysis.
Accordingly, the court concludes that the ALJ applied the correct legal standard by
independently performing the psychiatric review technique, documenting the evidence upon
which he relied, and incorporating his pertinent findings and conclusions in his written
opinion. 20 CFR § 416.920a(e)(4). Further, the court has reviewed the entire record,
including the evidence set forth in the ALJ’s opinion, and court concludes that the ALJ’s
application of the psychiatric review technique is substantially supported by the evidence.
The ALJ did not commit an error of law by discrediting Holder’s examining
consulting physician and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.
On March 8, 2012, Holder’s attorney referred her to Dr. Robert A. Storjohann, Ph.D.,
for a psychological evaluation. (R. 290). This was the only time Holder consulted Dr.
Storjohann, and Holder served as the sole informant for the historical information contained
in Dr. Storjohann’s report. (R. 290). At the time of the consultation, Holder had stopped
maintaining persistence, concentration, or pace, and no episodes of decompensation. (R. 256, 266); see 20
C.F.R. §416.920a(d)(1) (“If we rate the degree of your limitation in the first three functional areas as ‘none’
or ‘mild’ and ‘none’ in the fourth area, we will generally conclude that your impairment(s) is not severe,
unless the evidence otherwise indicates that there is more than a minimal limitation in your ability to do basic
work activities”). However, the ALJ found that “singly and in combination,” Holder had severe impairments
of anxiety and depression which caused moderate restriction in activities of daily living, moderate restriction
in maintaining social functioning, maintaining persistence, concentration, or pace, and no episodes of
decompensation. (R. 21). The ALJ then proceeded to consider whether those impairments met or equaled
an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and concluded that they did not. (R. 2122); see 20 C.F.R. §416.920a(d)(1) (“If your mental impairment(s) is severe, we must then determine if it
meets or is equivalent in severity to a listed mental disorder.”). There is no basis for Holder’s apparent
assumption that the ALJ silently credited, relied upon, or adopted Dr. Estock’s opinion.
taking her anxiety and depression medication because it caused her to be too drowsy to
provide daily, around-the-clock care for her handicapped daughter. (R. 293). Prior to the
consultation, beginning in December 2010, Holder’s primary care physician had prescribed
Buspirone for her depression and anxiety, and Holder had previously reported that the
medication “helped tremendously” and “really helped” her to handle stress well. (R. 164,
176, 227-29, 226, 222-24). After Dr. Strojohann’s examination, Holder began taking
Busparin again and, although she sought medical treatment from her primary care physician
for back pain, muscle spasm, joint pain, obesity, and allergies, she did not thereafter seek
treatment for anxiety or depression. (R. 312, 323-25, 326-28, 335-36).
Dr. Storjohann administered the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), on which Holder’s
score corresponded to moderate to severe depression, the Zung Depression Scale, on which
Holder’s score corresponded to severe to most extreme depression, and the Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III). Based on the results of his evaluation and testing, Dr.
Storjohann concluded that Holder had moderate deficits in her ability to understand, carry
out, and remember instructions in a work setting and marked deficits in her ability to respond
appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and work pressures in a work setting. (R. 296). Dr.
Storjohann also completed a residual functional capacity questionnaire in which he opined
that Holder had a marked limitation in the ability to respond appropriately to supervision and
coworkers, marked limitation in ability to accept instructions and respond appropriately to
criticism from supervisors, moderate to marked limitation in ability to work in coordination
with or proximity to others without being distracted by them, marked limitation in ability to
respond appropriately to changes in the work setting, and marked impairment in the ability
to maintain and sustain attention and concentration for extended periods (periods greater than
two hours). (R. 57-59, 298-300). Dr. Storjohann also opined that Holder would likely miss
work 15 to 20 days per month due to her disability. (R. 57-58, 300).
In this case, after considering the complete medical record and Holder’s statements
regarding her activities of daily living, the ALJ only partially credited Dr. Storjohann’s
opinion regarding Holder’s residual functional capacity. Specifically, “in light of the
claimant’s history of depression and anxiety, the [ALJ gave] some weight to Dr. Storjohann’s
opinions in limiting the claimant to simple, routine and repetitive tasks in an environment
where there is only occasional interaction with the general public and where changes are
infrequent and gradually introduced.” (R. 26). Then, based on the testimony of a vocational
expert (“VE”), the ALJ found that Holder was not disabled because a person with her
residual functional capacity could perform certain jobs that are available in significant
numbers in the national economy. (R. 28-29).
However, in response to hypothetical questions at the administrative hearing in this
case, the VE testified that there were no jobs available in the national economy for someone
with Holder’s functional limitations if those limitations also included the functional
limitations reflected in Dr. Storjohann’s opinion. (R. 56-59). Accordingly, if the ALJ had
fully credited Dr. Storjohann’s opinion, then the ALJ would have been required to find
Holder disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.966(b) (“If work that you can do does not exist in the
national economy, we will determine that you are disabled.”). Holder argues that the ALJ
erred by failing to fully credit Dr. Storjohann’s opinion and find her disabled.
Specifically, Holder argues that the ALJ erred in assessing her residual functional
capacity by crediting the opinion5 of Dr. Estock, who did not examine Holder and did not
have access to pertinent later-developed medical records, while discrediting the residual
functional capacity assessment of Dr. Storjohann, who did examine Holder and who had
access to an additional year’s worth of medical records. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1)
(“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to
the opinion of a source who has not examined you.”). However, the ALJ’s detailed
explanation of the medical evidence and other evidence upon which he relied in determining
Holder’s residual functional capacity clearly shows that the ALJ partially credited Dr.
Storjohann’s findings and residual functional capacity assessment, but the ALJ did not rely
at all on Dr. Estock’s opinion in partially discrediting Dr. Storjohann or in formulating
Holder’s residual functional capacity. In fact, the ALJ did not rely on Dr. Estock’s opinion
at any point in his analysis. Accordingly, there is simply no basis for Holder’s argument that
the ALJ erred by accepting the opinion of a nonexamining physician (Dr. Estock) instead of
an examining physician (Dr. Storjohann).
Dr. Estock’s opinion consisted of applying the psychological review technique required at steps two
and three of the sequential analysis. See 20 CFR § 416.920a. Dr. Estock did not provide a residual
functional capacity assessment.
Holder argues that the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Storjohann’s opinion on grounds that
the results of the tests administered by Dr. Storjohann are inconsistent with Dr. Storjohann’s
own objective observations of the claimant. The ALJ provided the following explanation for
giving little controlling weight to Dr. Storjohann’s report:
Upon referral by her attorney, the claimant was examined by Robert A
Storjohann, Ph.D. in March 2012. The claimant reported depressive and
anxiety-related symptoms but stated she was not taking any psychotropic
medications because they were overly sedating. While Dr. Storjohann noted
the claimant exhibited anxiousness and depression, the remainder of her
mental status examination was essentially normal. Specifically, he noted the
claimant exhibited normal speech, full orientation, intact memory, logical and
goal-directed thought processes, no hallucinations or delusions, grossly intact
judgment and an average range of intelligence. Dr. Storjohann also noted the
claimant's concentration/attention were intact, as the claimant was able to
perform simple mathematical calculations, spell “world” forwards and
backwards, recall 3/3 objects after a 5 minute delay, and recall 6 digits forward
and 5 digits backwards. Although he noted that her scores on the Beck
Depression Inventory (BDI) and Zung Depression Scale (Zung) fell within the
moderate to extreme range of depression, the claimant’s relatively normal
mental status examination suggests that her depression does not impose
significant functional limitations. Dr. Storjohann assigned the claimant a
Global Assessment Functioning (GAF) score of 45, which represents serious
impairment in social or occupational functioning. However, this relatively low
GAF score appears to be based primarily on the claimant's subjective
complaints and her low BDI and Zung scores, as it is not consistent with Dr.
Storjohann's relatively normal findings upon mental status examination.
Moreover, Dr. Storjohann examined the claimant on only one occasion upon
request of the claimant's attorney, and his limited contact with the claimant
renders his opinion regarding the claimant's overall functionality less
persuasive. (Exhibit 6F). Accordingly, this GAF score has been given little
. . . Dr. Storjohann did not cite any significant objective abnormalities upon
mental status examination to support his opinions. He only noted that the
claimant exhibited some depression and anxiousness but otherwise noted the
remainder of her mental status examination was normal. Dr. Storjohann also
noted the claimant was cooperative, and he cited no objective findings to
support his opinion regarding the claimant's social limitations, suggesting
those opinions were based solely on the claimant's subjective reports and the
claimant's BDI and ZDS scores. Additionally, as noted previously, Dr.
Storjohann examined the claimant on only one occasion on request of the
claimant's attorney. His limited contact with the claimant, as well as any
potential prejudice stemming from the referral made by the claimant's attorney,
renders his opinions regarding the claimant’s overall functionality less
persuasive. Moreover, the relatively sporadic and conservative treatment of the
claimant's psychiatric symptoms since her amended alleged onset date suggests
that her symptoms are not as limiting as Dr. Storjohann perceived.
Nonetheless, in light of the claimant’s history of depression and anxiety, the
undersigned has given some weight to Dr. Storjohann’s opinions in limiting
the claimant to simple, routine and repetitive tasks in an environment where
there is only occasional interaction with the general public and where changes
are infrequent and gradually introduced. However, to the extent that he has
opined the claimant is incapable of working on a regular and sustained basis,
that opinion has been given little weight, as it is not supported by his objective
mental status examination findings or the medical evidence of record. (Exhibit
The court has reviewed the report and findings of Dr. Storjohann, and the ALJ
correctly characterized the report.
As the ALJ noted, other than Holder’s subjective
statements and test scores, Dr. Storjohann’s report contains no objective findings that would
support his residual functional capacity assessment, but it does contain objective observations
(such as a relatively normal mental status examination that indicated no memory deficits) that
are inconsistent with his residual functional capacity assessment. Further, the ALJ provided
a detailed explanation showing that Dr. Storjohann’s opinion is inconsistent with the medical
record as a whole and with Holder’s testimony regarding her activities of daily living. The
ALJ was entitled to discredit Dr. Storjohann’s opinion on grounds that it was unsupported
by his own objective observations and on grounds that it was inconsistent with the medical
record and the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(3)-(4).
Holder argues that the ALJ erred as a matter of law by “acting as both judge and
psychologist” because, rather than relying on Dr. Storjohann’s residual functional capacity
assessment, the ALJ instead assessed Holder’s residual functional capacity based on his own
independent consideration medical record and the evidence as a whole. However, there is
no merit to Holder’s argument because the applicable legal standards actually require that
the final responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity belongs to the ALJ. 20
C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2). Although the ALJ to must “consider” a medical source statement
regarding a claimant’s residual functional capacity, opinions regarding a claimant’s residual
functional capacity are not medical opinions, but are “opinions on issues reserved to the
Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that
would direct the determination or decision of disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d). Thus, the
ALJ applied the proper legal standard by independently assessing Holder’s residual
functional capacity on the basis of all the evidence.
Accordingly, the ALJ applied the correct legal standards in assigning limited weight
to Dr. Storjohann’s residual functional capacity assessment. Further, the court has reviewed
the record as a whole and finds that the evidence as a whole, and in particular the evidence
cited by the ALJ in his detailed opinion, supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity
For the reasons as stated, the court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner
should be affirmed. See Landry v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1551, 1551-52 (11th Cir. 1986)
(“Because the factual findings made by the [ALJ] . . . are supported by substantial evidence
in the record and because these findings do not entitle [the claimant] to disability benefits
under the appropriate legal standard, we affirm.”).
The Court will enter a separate final judgment.
Done this 8th day of June, 2015.
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?