Glass v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DISMISSING CASE that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion and order as more fully set out therein. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 9/22/2014. (AHI)
2014 Sep-22 PM 04:01
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
BRYCE DENTON GLASS,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner, Social Security
Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-1941-CLS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
Claimant, Bryce Denton Glass, commenced this action on October 21, 2013,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of
the Commissioner, affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”),
and thereby denying his claim for a period of disability, disability insurance, and
supplemental security income benefits. For the reasons stated herein, the court finds
that the Commissioner’s ruling is due to be reversed, and this case is due to be
remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
The court’s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is
a narrow one. The scope of review is limited to determining whether there is
substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the
Commissioner, and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Lamb v.
Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253
(11th Cir. 1983).
Claimant contends that the Commissioner’s decision is neither supported by
substantial evidence nor in accordance with applicable legal standards. Specifically,
claimant asserts that the ALJ improperly evaluated his subjective complaints of pain
and his credibility, failed to adequately develop the administrative record, and
improperly considered the medical opinions of record. Upon review of the record,
the court concludes that remand is required for further consideration of one of the
consultative physicians’ opinions.
Social Security regulations provide that, in considering what weight to give any
medical opinion (regardless of whether it is from a treating or non-treating physician),
the Commissioner should evaluate:
the extent of the examining or treating
relationship between the doctor and patient; whether the doctor’s opinion can be
supported by medical signs and laboratory findings; whether the opinion is consistent
with the record as a whole; the doctor’s specialization; and other factors. See 20
C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). See also Wheeler v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 1073, 1075 (11th Cir.
1986) (“The weight afforded a physician’s conclusory statements depends upon the
extent to which they are supported by clinical or laboratory findings and are
consistent with other evidence as to claimant’s impairments.”).
Dr. Anthony Fava conducted a consultative physical examination of claimant
on September 1, 2009. Claimant complained of low back and hip pain, poor memory,
neck and shoulder pain, hypertension, and hypothyroidism.
examination, the range of motion in claimant’s neck was slightly limited. Claimant
had normal findings, including range of motion, in his upper extremities. His lower
extremities and back also were normal, except for some decreased range of motion
in the hips and dorsolumbar spine. Claimant could get on and off the exam table
easily, was able to squat and rise, and was able to heel and toe walk. He ambulated
slowly, but without the use of a cane, and without any ataxia or spacticity. The
neurological findings were as follows:
major muscle groups measure 5/5 bilaterally; sensory – normal to pin
prick and vibration; reflexes are 3/4 bilaterally; Grip 5/5; Romberg is
negative; seated leg raising test is positive on the right at 60 degrees,
and 40 degrees on the left; there is no evidence of atrophy; fine and
gross manipulation are intact.1
Dr. Fava assessed claimant with mild retardation; chronic low back pain, secondary
to degenerative disc disease; left hip pain, probably due to arthritis; hypertension; and
hypothyroidism. He stated that claimant was “able to perform the following work
related activities: sitting, standing, walking for less than 15 minutes; lifting, carrying,
and handling objects weighting [sic] less than 5 lbs, hearing and speaking; is unable
The ALJ stated that he was assigning Dr. Fava’s opinion great weight,3 but, as
claimant points out, that conclusion is inconsistent with the ALJ’s ultimate finding
that claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of
light work. Social Security regulations define “light” work as follows:
Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with
frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even
though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when
it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting
most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls.
To be considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light
work, you must have the ability to do substantially all of these activities.
If someone can do light work, we determine that he or she can also do
sedentary work, unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss
of fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of time.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (emphasis supplied). Sedentary work, in contrast,
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. § 404.1567(a) (emphasis supplied). Thus, if claimant were able to lift,
carry, and handle objects weighing only five pounds or less, he would be limited to
performing sedentary work, and would not be able to perform light work. Further,
Tr. 251 (alteration and emphasis supplied).
and importantly, as an individual “closely approaching advanced age,” with a high
school education that does not provide for direct entry into skilled work, and with an
unskilled work history, claimant would be disabled under Medical-Vocational Rule
201.12 if he were capable of only sedentary work. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,
App. 2, Rule 201.12.4
The Commissioner acknowledges this inconsistency in her brief.5 Even so, she
urges the court to ignore the inconsistency because Dr. Fava’s opinion was only one
piece of evidence the ALJ used in determining claimant’s residual functional
capacity.6 The court does not agree. The ALJ’s opinion is internally inconsistent,
and without some clarification, the court cannot determine whether the opinion was
supported by substantial evidence. Remand is warranted for the ALJ to give further
consideration to Dr. Fava’s opinion, as well as the remainder of the medical evidence,
and to enter a revised administrative decision further explaining the weight assigned
to the opinions of all the medical providers of record.
Claimant was 53 years old on the date of the ALJ’s decision and was therefore an
“individual approaching advanced age.” Tr. 22, 24, 123; 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, §
201(g). It appears undisputed that claimant had a high school education and a history of unskilled
work. See Tr. 163-64.
See doc. no. 12 (Commissioner’s brief), at 12 (“Dr. Fava’s opinion appears to be more
restrictive than the ALJ’s RFC finding.”).
See id. at 12 (“However, Dr. Fava’s opinion does not take away from the ALJ’s overall
credibility assessment.”), 13 (“Although the Dr. Fava’s opinion is more restrictive than the ALJ’s
RFC finding, the ALJ considered several factors, not only Dr. Fava’s opinion, in discounting
Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and
this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion and
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this file.
DONE this 22nd day of September, 2014.
United States District 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?