Rivers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 8/12/2014. (AVC)
2014 Aug-12 PM 04:11
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DEIDRA DAWN RIVERS,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
The plaintiff, Deidra Dawn Rivers, appeals from the decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (ACommissioner@) denying her
application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (ADIB@).
The denial of benefits was based not upon a denial of her claim that she is disabled,
but on the determination that she did not become disabled until September 1, 2011,
and that her insured status expired on December 31, 2009. Ms. Rivers timely
pursued and exhausted her administrative remedies, and the decision of the
Commissioner is ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '' 405(g), 1383(c)(3). 1
The parties have consented to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by the
Ms. Rivers was 50 years old at the time of the Administrative Law Judge=s
(AALJ@) decision, and she has a high school education and one year of college. (Tr.
at 43-44.) Her past work experience was working at a framing gallery where she
framed, matted, and mounted artwork as part of an assembly line. (Tr. at 44-45.)
Ms. Rivers claims that she became disabled on April 1, 2004, due to chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, back problems, and knee problems.
(Tr. at 43.) In addition, Ms. Rivers is morbidly obese, has carpal tunnel syndrome,
is diabetic, and has depression and anxiety. (Tr. at 47-47). She has more recently
developed neck pain as a result of cervical disc degeneration. (Tr. at 51).
When evaluating the disability of individuals over the age of 18, the
regulations prescribe a five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R.
'' 404.1520, 416.920; see also Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir.
2001). The first step requires a determination of whether the claimant is Adoing
substantial gainful activity.@ 20 C.F.R. '' 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If
she is, the claimant is not disabled and the evaluation stops. Id. If she is not, the
Commissioner next considers the effect of all of the claimant’s physical and mental
impairments combined. 20 C.F.R. '' 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). These
undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Doc. 8.
impairments must be severe and must meet the durational requirements before a
claimant will be found to be disabled. Id. The decision depends upon the medical
evidence in the record. See Hart v. Finch, 440 F.2d 1340, 1341 (5th Cir. 1971). If
the claimant=s impairments are not severe, the analysis stops.
'' 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). Otherwise, the analysis continues to step
three, which is a determination of whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal
the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20
C.F.R. '' 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant’s impairments fall
within this category, she will be found disabled without further consideration. Id.
If they do not, a determination of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (ARFC@)
will be made, and the analysis proceeds to the fourth step.
20 C.F.R. ''
404.1520(e), 416.920(e). Residual functional capacity is an assessment, based on
all relevant evidence, of a claimant’s remaining ability to do work despite her
impairments. 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1545(a).
The fourth step requires a determination of whether the claimant’s
impairments prevent her from returning to past relevant work.
'' 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv).
If the claimant can still do her past
relevant work, the claimant is not disabled and the evaluation stops. Id. If the
claimant cannot do past relevant work, then the analysis proceeds to the fifth step.
Id. Step five requires the court to consider the claimant’s RFC, as well as the
claimant’s age, education, and past work experience, in order to determine if she can
do other work. 20 C.F.R. '' 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant
can do other work, the claimant is not disabled. Id. The burden of demonstrating
that other jobs exist which the claimant can perform is on the Commissioner; and,
once that burden is met, the claimant must prove her inability to perform those jobs
in order to be found to be disabled. Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir.
Applying the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Ms. Rivers
was not disabled prior to September 1, 2011, but became disabled on that date, and
that her disability continued through the date of his decision. (Tr. at 20). He
further found that the insured status requirements were not met. (Tr. at 20). The
ALJ determined that Ms. Rivers met the insured status requirements of the Social
Security Act through December 31, 2009. (Tr. at 22). He then determined that
Ms. Rivers had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset of
her disability. (Tr. at 22.) According to the ALJ, since the alleged onset date of
disability, April 1, 2004, the claimant=s asthma, COPD, morbid obesity, lumbar
degenerative disc disease, status post laminectomy (1998), mild left knee
osteoarthritis (June 2008), mild right foot planer spur and degenerative changes
(June 2009), mild right knee osteoarthritis (August 2010), and depression with
mixed anxiety are considered Asevere@ based on the requirements set forth in the
regulations. (Tr. at 22.) He found that, since September 1, 2011, the claimant had,
in addition to the severe impairments listed above, severe impairments of Acervical
and thoracic spine degenerative disc disease (2011) with right occipital neuralgia
and migraine ....@ (Tr. at 22).
He found that Ms. Rivers’ history of hypertension
and hypotension, diabetes mellitus, carpal tunnel syndrome, status post carpal tunnel
release on the right, status post left knee arthroscopy and status post lap-band
surgery for obesity were non-severe impairments. (Tr. at 23). He further found
that claimant’s mental impairments did not meet the criteria of an applicable mental
(Tr. at 24.)
The ALJ did not find Ms. Rivers= statements concerning the intensity,
persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms to be credible prior to September 1,
2011. (Tr. at 27).2
He determined that, prior to September 1, 2011, she had the
The ALJ made this finding notwithstanding his statement at the close of the hearing that
the claimant had given “very candid testimony in this case.” (Tr. at 77).
residual functional capacity to perform a full range of sedentary work, except that
she must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, heat, humidity, and
pulmonary irritants, should have no exposure to unprotected heights or hazardous
machinery, could occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl and climb stairs and
ramps, but could not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. (Tr. at 24.)
Moving on to the fourth step of the analysis, the ALJ concluded that Ms.
Rivers is not is able to perform her past relevant work, but that, prior to September 1,
2011, as the vocational expert testified, there were a significant number of jobs in the
national economy that claimant could have performed. (Tr. at 33). Finally, the
ALJ concluded that since September 1, 2011, Ms. Rivers has been disabled. (Tr. at
34). Because the date of onset determined by the ALJ was beyond the claimant=s
date of insured status, Ms. Rivers was found to be ineligible for DIB.
Standard of Review
This Court=s role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is
a narrow one. The scope of its review is limited to determining (1) whether there is
substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the
Commissioner, and (2) whether the correct legal standards were applied. See
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401 (1971); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d
1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is Amore than a scintilla and is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.@ Crawford v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 363 F3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir.
2004), quoting Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439-40 (11th Cir. 1997). The
Court approaches the factual findings of the Commissioner with deference, but
applies close scrutiny to the legal conclusions. See Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397,
1400 (11th Cir. 1996).
The Court may not decide facts, weigh evidence, or
substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner.
evidence standard permits administrative decision makers to act with considerable
latitude, and >the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the
evidence does not prevent an administrative agency=s finding from being supported
by substantial evidence.=@ Parker v. Bowen, 793 F.2d 1177, 1181 (11th Cir. 1986)
(Gibson, J., dissenting) (quoting Consolo v. Federal Mar. Comm=n, 383 U.S. 607,
620 (1966)). Indeed, even if this Court finds that the evidence preponderates
against the Commissioner’s decision, the Court must affirm if the decision is
supported by substantial evidence.
Miles, 84 F.3d at 1400.
No decision is
automatic, however, for Adespite this deferential standard [for review of claims] it is
imperative that the Court scrutinize the record in its entirety to determine the
reasonableness of the decision reached.@ Bridges v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 622, 624 (11th
Cir. 1987). Moreover, failure to apply the correct legal standards is grounds for
reversal. See Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629, 635 (11th Cir. 1984).
Ms. Rivers asserts that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed and remanded
because the ALJ failed to properly consider the evidence relating to the severity of
her conditions and symptoms prior to September 1, 2011. (Doc. 11, pp. 12-21).
In order to be eligible for benefits under Title II, the claimant must have
demonstrated that she was disabled on or before the last date on which she was
insured B December 31, 2009.
See Miller v. Commission of Soc. Sec. Admin., 280
Fed. Appx. 870, 871 (11th Cir. 2008), citing Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211
(11th Cir. 1990); see also 42 U.S.C. ' 423(a)(1)(A). To establish the existence of
the disability, the claimant must have shown that her impairment or combination of
impairments meet or exceed the requirements of a listed impairment from
Appendix 1 of Subpart P, 20 C.F.R. ' 404.
The ALJ supported his finding that Ms. Rivers became disabled on
September 1, 2011, based on the date that imaging test results first showed the
degenerative disc disease and spondylosis in the claimant’s cervical spine. It is
clear, however, that Ms. Rivers had been experiencing lower back pain before her
laminectomy in 1998, and that the pain had not resolved before 2009. She went to
the emergency room in June of 2007 and again in April 2008 complaining of severe
back pain (Exh. 17F, pp. 710-715, 678-679), and she reported back pain as one of her
chief complaints even when being examined for acute symptoms of pneumonia.
(Exh. 17F, p. 666). In addition, the Aunremarkable@ lumbar spine imaging results
upon which the ALJ relied apparently were only x-rays (Exh. 17F, p. 715), and there
is no indication that MRIs or more sensitive imaging tests (like the MRI that
revealed the cervical spine abnormalities) had ever been ordered. (Exh. 17F,
Finally, while the ALJ interpreted the pain from the cervical discs to be the
additional objective medical evidence that put the claimant Aover the edge@ into
disability, his conclusion that the cervical issues were the tipping point is not
supported by substantial evidence.
In fact, the conclusion is contrary to the
claimant=s testimony. Consider the following exchange:
So your cervical and upper thoracic area would be more
problematic for you now [than your lower back problems].
Would that be a correct statement?
No, sir. I think, I mean my lower back is a problem but I know
what I can do from that. I know, you know, mostly if I, if I stand
up too long or if I sit in one position too long, I know that I=m
going to pay for that the next day or two. But as far as the
cervical and the, I=m having injections on my neck right now and
I=m still having to do the, the pain pills and, you know, different
things for that. Sometimes ice helps, sometimes heat helps.
But as far as the middle back, the I don=t know [what] you call it,
I don=t know what it=s called, in the middle.
The lumbar is, you know, the lower part is more, I don=t know,
it=s, I=ve got used to that I guess you can say. I=ve got used to
what I can do and what I can=t do. But it=s still a problem.
(Tr. at 51.)
The claimant also clearly testified that she was missing two to three days per month
when she was working in 2004 because of her chronic pain:
Now on your worst day, when there=s pain B
B where would that pain scale fall at?
I=d say anywhere from an eight to a ten to a seven. I never get,
like on my bad days, where I=m going to bed, it is, it is a bad, bad
Now, you testified a little earlier that you have bad days wherein
you pretty much stay in the bed a while and just get up and do
what you absolutely have to do or what=s necessary to do.
And I believe you indicated that you have, what, three days, I
believe that was you testimony bad days B
During a month.
B in a week B during a month?
During a month, yes.
Now that was fairly consistent with your, with the way pain
symptomology has run since you left or actually in this case
maybe before you left your last job back in 2004?
Yeah, I would B
You had two or three bad days a month where you just couldn=t
work because of pain?
Okay. And does that relate to your earlier testimony that you
were missing quite a few number of days on average prior to you
leaving that job [Paragon]?
Well, that and with the pneumonia, with the respiratory
Okay. Now, how many days on average per month prior to you
leaving that job in the, say, six months up until April of 2004, on
average how many days a month of work were you missing ---
Days a month?
--- if you recall?
Oh, I really can’t recall. I would, I really can’t recall how many
but I know that I was, I was being called into the office, you
know, for, missing, for my absenteeism.
I wish I could tell you how many days, but I can’t, I really can’t
remember. I know it was quite a few.
(Tr. at 66-67) (italics added). The claimant further testified that the COPD and
asthma, even without the chronic pain, caused her to be unable to work:
Well, when you were still working for Paragon, were you doing
the nebulizer treatments at that time?
Not during work, no. If I had a bad day or if I had a bad spell, or
if I, sometimes if I get a sinus infection, it would get down into
my lungs, you know, drain down into my lungs and I would have
to use them at that time, but that=s when I was, I would be out of
work. I couldn=t use [the nebulizer treatments], you know, I
couldn=t use them at work.
When you, when you left Paragon back in 2004 based on your
earlier testimony, the implication was that you left because of all
your chronic pain issues. If it weren=t for the chronic pain,
could you have continued to work with your COPD and asthma
I was out of work quite a bit with that. I would say no.
(Tr. at 54).
The ALJ specifically asked Ms. Rivers how many days she was
missing from work at the time that she left her job, and she stated that she couldn=t
recall the exact number of days she missed per month but that it was Aquite a few.@
(Tr. at 67). This testimony takes on importance because the vocational expert later
testified that a hypothetical individual with absences of Atwo or more days of work
per month due to chronic recurrent symptomatology@ would be precluded from
Aeither past work or other work.@ (Tr. at 75). There was no evidence submitted
that called into question the claimant=s testimony that, in 2004, she was missing
more than two days of work per month because of her chronic recurrent back pain.
The phrase “quite a few,” while lacking specificity, logically means more than two,
which is further bolstered by her testimony that her employer had called her into the
office to discuss her many absences. (Tr. at 67).
Ms. Rivers further testified that she had additional absences attributable to the
shortness of breath caused by asthma and COPD. The asthma and COPD required
the use of treatments by a nebulizer and a rescue inhaler. None of the hypothetical
questions asked of the vocational expert addressed the ability to work given
claimant=s need to undergo nebulizer treatments that required special equipment and
took about 15 minutes each, three times a day, and the frequent use of a rescue
inhaler, after which she required several minutes of rest in order to regain her breath.
According to the testimony that was elicited from the vocational expert, the level of
absenteeism that was described by the claimant, even without considering the need
for breaks to use her nebulizer or rescue inhaler, would have rendered her unable to
perform any work even before she voluntarily left her job in 2004. 3
Ms. Rivers alluded to the possibility that her employer may have been considering
firing her in that she testified that she was called in to discuss her absenteeism. The fact that she
was not fired B perhaps because her employer was sympathetic or perhaps because Ms. Rivers was
a good worker when she was able to be at work B should not diminish her right to benefits if she
was disabled under the appropriate regulations. Otherwise, claimants with less flexible
employers, or who simply don=t work as hard to try to carry their workload, have an advantage
making them more likely to receive Social Security benefits, thus incentivizing a lack of effort.
The record further established that, while the claimant=s impairments
worsened because of the cervical disc disease that was not verified by objective
medical evidence until September 2011, her obesity decreased after she lost 100
pounds. This fact was apparently not considered by the ALJ in establishing an
onset date linked solely to the cervical disc images. To the contrary, the ALJ=s
assessment did not take into account that Ms. Rivers weighed more than 300 pounds
in 2004, and that she made efforts to reduce her weight. The ALJ did not state that
he took into consideration that the claimant delayed seeking benefits because she
remained optimistic that her weight loss and medical treatments would render her
able to return to the workforce. The evidence demonstrated not that claimant failed
to apply for benefits prior to 2010 because she was not disabled prior to 2010, but
that she delayed her application because she believed that she might be able to Aget
better and be able to return to work.@ (Tr. at 26).
The ALJ failed to consider the exacerbating effect claimant’s obesity had on
her other medical conditions, including her COPD, lower back pain, and knee pain.
Throughout claimant’s medical records, various physicians described her as
“morbidly” obese. Indeed, in 2010 she underwent lap-band surgery to lose weight,
and has successfully lost 100 pounds since.
But this does not change the
assessment whether, prior to that time, going back to 2004, her obesity so aggravated
her COPD, back pain, and knee pain that she was rendered disabled. Obesity, either
alone or in combination with other medical ailments, can result in disability and
must be considered by the ALJ in the assessment of the claimant’s ability to work.
“Social Security Regulation 02–1p provides that obesity shall be considered when
determining if (1) a claimant has a medically determinable impairment, (2) the
impairment is severe, (3) the impairment meets or equals the requirements of a listed
impairment, and (4) the impairment bars claimant ‘from doing past relevant work
and other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.’” Lewis
v. Commissioner of Social Security, 487 F. App'x 481, 483 (11th Cir. 2012); see also
Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629, 635 (11th Cir. 1984) (“[W]e hold that where… a
claimant has alleged a multitude of impairments, a claim for social security benefits
based on disability may lie even though none of the impairments, considered
individually, is disabling. In such instances, it is the duty of the administrative law
judge to make specific and well-articulated findings as to the effect of the
combination of impairments and to decide whether the combined impairments cause
the claimant to be disabled.”).
In this case, it is plain that morbid obesity affected and worsened many of
claimant’s medical impairments, most particularly her COPD. She testified that
she had to use a nebulizer frequently to regain her breath after attempting to walk.
Indeed, the “Exercise Journals” pointed out by the ALJ simply confirm that walking
exacerbated her COPD to point of requiring the use of a rescue inhaler three times
during a 45-minute walk. Claimant suffered from COPD, asthma, and morbid
obesity well before December 31, 2009.
In November 2008, claimant was
hospitalized for five days with serious respiratory issues. Upon her discharge, a
treating physician wrote that “her morbid obesity could be causing hypoventilation
syndrome…,” clearly linking her obesity to her COPD and shortness of breath.
(Exh. 2F, p. 227). The ALJ did not attempt to explain how this event was not the
tipping point at which claimant’s disability became clear. The combination of her
COPD and asthma, exacerbated by her obesity (which caused even more
“hypoventilation” or shortness of breath), is plainly consistent with her testimony
that she was frequently required nebulizer treatments to regain her breath.
It is also telling that the ALJ, at the end of the hearing, thanked Ms. Rivers for
Awhat I perceive to be your very candid testimony in this case.@ (Tr. at 77).
statement contradicts the ALJ=s ultimate decision regarding Ms. Rivers= credibility.
The ALJ determined that Ms. Rivers= descriptions of her abilities were not credible
prior to September 2011, but were credible regarding her abilities after that date.
No clear reasons are given for this shifting opinion of her credibility, however, the
ALJ seemed to rely heavily on the AExercise Journals@ contained in Exhibit 4F. (Tr.
at 292-315). The ALJ noted that Ms. Rivers had been walking, swimming, and
climbing bleachers in 2010. These Ajournals@ were forms required by Ms. Rivers=
doctor as she prepared for lap-band surgery in 2010. The documents referred to,
however, indicate only what Ms. Rivers reported her activities for only any five days
per month during the months leading to the surgery, and while most of the entries
indicated Awalking,@ Astretching,@ and Aswimming,@ almost none of the entries
specified a duration, distance, or level of exertion. (See Exhibit 4F, p. 296, 301,
306, 311, 314).4 The few that specify time or distance indicate only: A10 minutes@
of walking on a treadmill, (Exh. 4F, p. 296); walking Aprobably 1 mile,@ (Exh. 4F, p.
306); walking 30 minutes with Adifficulty,@ which required using a rescue inhaler;
and walking 45 minutes, having to stop three times to use an inhaler (Exh. 4F, p.
Ms. Rivers filled out the forms from March 2009 until July 2009, the five months
leading up to her lap-band surgery. She told the ALJ that she could not walk very far, but that she
could swim, because it was less of a problem for her back pain and her respiratory problems. (Tr.
311). The AExercise Journal,@ despite its title, could not fairly be considered to be a
general description of the claimant’s daily activities. The ALJ’s conclusion that the
claimant was Amuch more active than alleged@ and could have performed sedentary
work prior to 2011 is not supported by substantial evidence. (Tr. at 28). If
anything, this evidence shows how claimant’s COPD and obesity limited her ability
to work in any meaningful sense.
The ALJ failed to consider the claimant’s testimony that her COPD required
her to miss more than two days of work a month. Her treating physician, Dr.
Kopyta, expressed the opinion in June 2012 that claimant’s medical conditions,
including COPD and obesity, would require her to miss more than three days of
work each month and would cause claimant to be distracted from job tasks more
than two hours out of each eight-hour work day. (Exh. 14B, pp. 133-134). This is
consistent with claimant’s testimony that even when she was attempting to work in
2004, her respiratory problems caused her to miss “quite a few” days of work, to the
point that her employer called her into the office to discuss her absences. The
importance of this evidence is found in the testimony of the vocational expert, David
Head, who testified that more than two absences per month would make a
hypothetical person like claimant unemployable. (Tr. at 75).
The Court is aware that opinions such as whether a claimant is disabled, the
claimant=s residual functional capacity, and the application of vocational factors Aare
not medical opinions,... but are, instead, 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.
'' 404.1527(e), 416.927(d).
The court Amay not decide facts anew, reweigh the
evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the Commissioner.@ Dyer v.
Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005).
Even so, the court must
determine whether the ALJ=s determination is based upon substantial evidence, not a
mere scintilla of evidence. 395 F.3d at 1210. Credibility determinations cannot be
based on Aan intangible or intuitive notion,@ but must be Agrounded in the evidence
and articulated in the determination or decision.@ Soc. Sec. R. 96-7p, 1996 WL
374186 at *4.
Staying as active as possible, especially when the activity is linked to
treatment designed to improve the claimant=s disabling condition B in this case
obesity B is not inconsistent with a finding of disability. See, e.g., Reddick v.
Chater, 157 F.3d 715,724 (9th Cir. 1998).
Moreover, Ms. Rivers= record of
attempting to walk, stretch, and swim B with very limited success B in order to
qualify for the lap-band surgery is not inconsistent with her testimony about chronic
pain and breathing difficulties.
Finally, the ALJ’s credibility determinations and opinions regarding disability
are due deference, but only if they are based upon a consideration of Athe individual=s
statements about symptoms with the rest of the relevant evidence in the case,@ and
reflect the record as a whole. Soc. Sec. R. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 at *1. In this
case, the record as a whole demonstrates that the claimant consistently complained
of severe back pain over many years, and that none of the health professionals who
have examined her discounted her subjective complaints of pain. The duration,
frequency and intensity of the alleged pain are factors that must be considered
pursuant to 20 C.F.R. '' 404.1529 and 416.929.
The ALJ=s credibility
determination must also Abe sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and
to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the individual=s
statements and the reasons for that weight.@ Soc. Sec. R. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186
An ALJ=s failure to explicitly articulate the reasons for discrediting
testimony requires that Aas a matter of law, the testimony be accepted as true.@
Snyder v. Commission of Soc. Sec., 330 Fed. Appx. 843, 848 (11th Cir. 2009), citing
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995). Another judge within this
district has noted that where an ALJ Aeither fails to articulate reasons for refusing to
credit the plaintiff=s pain testimony, or if his reasons are not supported by substantial
evidence, the plaintiff=s testimony regarding pain or other subjective symptoms
(such as fatigue) must be accepted as true.@ Merritt v. Barnhart, 430 F. Supp. 2d
1245, 1249 (N.D. Ala. 2006), citing Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1012 (11th Cir.
1987). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that a condition that
is not Aeasily seen or examined@ should not be discounted for a lack of objective
evidence, noting that Ain certain situations, pain alone can be disabling, even when
its existence is unsupported by objective evidence.@ Cavarra v. Astrue, 393 Fed.
Appx. 612, 615-16 (11th Cir. 2010).
In Cavarra, the ALJ=s credibility
determination was found to be unsupported where he Acompletely discounted@ the
claimant=s subjective complaints of pain.
393 Fed. Appx. at 616. If an ALJ
chooses to discredit testimony regarding pain, he must Aarticulate explicit adequate
reasons for doing so.@ 393 Fed. Appx. at 615, citing Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561-62.
The ALJ failed to support by substantial evidence his finding that the claimant
could perform sedentary work prior until September 1, 2011. Accordingly, the
matter is due to be reversed and remanded for a hearing that properly considers the
effects of the claimant=s asthma, COPD, back pain, obesity, and the frequency of
absences caused by her medical conditions prior to September 1, 2011.
Upon review of the administrative record, and considering all of Ms. Rivers=
arguments, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds the Commissioner=s decision
regarding the date of onset of disability is not supported by substantial evidence and
is not in accord with the applicable law.
By separate judgment, the court will
reverse the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits and remand case for a
supplemental hearing to determine the onset date of the claimant’s disability
consistent with this opinion.
DATED the 12th day of August, 2014.
T. MICHAEL PUTNAM
U.S. 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?