Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's determination of not disabled as more fully set out herein. Signed by Judge Liles C Burke on 4/18/2019. (AHI)

FILED
2019 Apr-18 PM 01:43
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
MELISSA MAE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
COMMISSIONER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 4:18-cv-434-LCB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the complaint of plaintiff Melissa Mae Johnson. Plaintiff
seeks judicial review of an adverse final decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). The Court has reviewed the pertinent record and the parties’ briefs.
It is the duty of the Court to review the decision of the ALJ and not re-weigh
the evidence or substitute its decision for the ALJ’s. In particular, the Court must
affirm the ALJ’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if there is
evidence that supports the opposite conclusion. The Court must also determine
whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.
The Court finds substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ
did not err in failing to find that plaintiff did not meet Listing 11.02 regarding
1

seizure disorders. Plaintiff did not meet her burden to show that she met Listing
11.02. At almost all visits with Dr. Ata, plaintiff denied recent seizure activity and
memory loss. (R. 643, 652, 655, 658, 660, 663, 666, 668, 671, 676, 678, 684). Dr.
Ata also noted that her seizure order was stable and fairly well controlled. (Id. at
684). Dr. Ata’s notes do indicate a seizure at the office in January 2017 (id. at 650)
and a recent seizure in February 2017 (id. at 646).

This, however, does not

demonstrate that plaintiff met Listing 11.02.
Along those lines, there is no evidence that the ALJ did not take plaintiff’s
seizure calendar into account. The ALJ stated that he considered all symptoms
alleged by plaintiff and the extent to which the symptoms could reasonably be
accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.
Furthermore, the ALJ did acknowledge and take into account plaintiff’s seizure
disorder when formulating the RFC.
Moreover, an RFC finding is an issue that is separate and apart from whether
a person meets a Listing. The ALJ can account for a limitation resulting from a
severe impairment in the RFC, such as missing two days of work a month, even
though that impairment does not rise to the level of a Listing. The ALJ did not
commit error in this regard.
Additionally, there was good cause to not give substantial weight to Dr.
Ata’s conclusory, vague, and unsupported opinion that plaintiff “is unable to keep
2

the gainful employment because of multiple medical problems.” (Id. at 632). The
ultimate disability determination is made by the ALJ and the ALJ only.
Furthermore, as the Court has noted, at almost all visits with Dr. Ata, plaintiff
denied recent seizure activity and memory loss. While Dr. Ata did note seizure
activity in January and February 2017, nothing else in Dr. Ata’s records supports
his opinion that plaintiff cannot work.
The ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony that there were
jobs that plaintiff could perform in the national economy. The ALJ asked the
vocational expert whether someone with plaintiff’s limitations and who would
miss up to two days a month could perform jobs in the national economy. The
vocational expert said that two absences a month was acceptable, but that any more
than that would preclude employment. In formulating the RFC, the ALJ found that
plaintiff would have about two absences from work a month. Therefore, the ALJ
was entitled to rely on the vocational expert’s testimony that jobs are available in
the national economy that plaintiff can perform.
Consequently, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support
the Commissioner’s determination of not disabled.
A final judgment will be entered separately.

3