Pennington v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 3/21/2019. (JLC)

FILED
2019 Mar-21 PM 04:30
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

-N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JASPER DIVISION
GLENDA DIANNE

)

PENNINGTON,

)

Claimant,

)

v.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

)

6:17-CV-01963-KOB

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF

)

SOCIAL SECURITY,

)

Respondent.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 30, 2014, the claimant protectively applied for disability and disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The claimant initially alleged
disability beginning December 28, 2014, because of depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive
disorder, panic attacks, eating disorder, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic migraines,
social anxiety, and several suicide attempts. The Commissioner denied the claims on April 2,
2015. The claimant filed a timely request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and
the ALJ held a hearing on August 31, 2016. (R. 17, 20 71).
In a decision dated January 24, 2017, the ALJ found that the claimant was not disabled as
defined by the Social Security Act, rendering her ineligible for Social Security benefits. On
October 5, 2017, the Appeals Council denied the claimant’s request for review. Consequently,

1

the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration. The claimant has exhausted her administrative remedies, and this court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (R. 1, 14).
Because substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s findings regarding the weight he
gave the claimant’s treating physician and a consulting examiner, this court REVERSES and
REMANDS the decision of the Commissioner to the ALJ for reconsideration.
II. ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether the ALJ erred in failing to state the weight he gave to the opinion of the
consultative examiner Dr. Susan Corbin and in his description of the substance of Dr. Corbin’s
opinion.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard for reviewing the Commissioner’s decision is limited. This court must
affirm the Commissioner’s decision if he applied the correct legal standards and substantial
evidence supports his factual conclusions. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g); Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d
1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997); Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999 (11th Cir. 1987).
“No . . . presumption of validity attaches to the [Commissioner’s] legal conclusions,
including determination of the proper standards to be applied in evaluating claims.” Walker, 826
F.2d at 999. But this court does not review the Commissioner’s factual determinations de novo.
The court will affirm those factual determinations that are supported by substantial evidence.
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971).

2

The court must keep in mind that opinions, such as whether a claimant is disabled, the
nature and extent of a claimant’s residual functional capacity, and the application of vocational
factors, “are 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(d), 416.927(d).
Whether the claimant meets the listing and is qualified for Social Security disability benefits is a
question reserved for the ALJ, and the court “may 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). Thus, even if the court were to disagree with the ALJ about the
significance of certain facts, the court has no power to reverse that finding as long as substantial
evidence in the record supports it.
The court must “scrutinize the record in its entirety to determine the reasonableness of the
[Commissioner]’s factual findings.” Walker, 826 F.2d at 999. And a reviewing court must not
only look to those parts of the record that support the decision of the ALJ, but also must view the
record in its entirety and take account of evidence that detracts from the evidence relied on by
the ALJ. Hillsman v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 1179, 1180 (11th Cir. 1986).
IV. LEGAL STANDARD
The ALJ “must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions”
and the reasons for his finding; the failure to do so is reversible error. Romeo v. Comm’r of
Social Security, 686 F. App’x 731, 732 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Winschel v. Comm’r of Social
Security, 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011)). The ALJ's stated reasons must be legitimate
and supported by the substantial evidence in the record. See Tavarez v. Commissioner of Social
Security, 638 F. App’x 841, 847 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (finding that the “ALJ did not express a

3

legitimate reason supported by the record for giving [the consulting physician's] assessment little
weight.”).
V. FACTS
The claimant was forty-eight years old at the time of the ALJ’s final decision; has a high
school education; has past relevant work as a physical therapy assistant; and alleges disability
based on major depressive disorder, anxiety, complex regional pain syndrome, fibromyalgia,
migraine headaches, and chronic and severe pain. (R. 20, 25).
Physical and Mental Impairments
In November 2007, the claimant was involved in an automobile accident and suffered a
broken right hand. Consequently, the claimant underwent surgery at Alabama Outpatient
Surgery, in which Dr. Gary Russell placed two pins in her hand and casted it. Between January 3
and January 30, 2008, the claimant had follow-up appointments with Dr. Russell at Southern
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Associates. At each visit, Dr. Russell noted that the claimant’s
hand was stiff and weak, eventually diagnosing her with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) and
referring her to physical therapy. On January 21, Dr. Russell removed the pins in the claimant’s
hands and scheduled an anesthetic injection into the nerves in her neck on February 5 to prevent
pain. (R. 47, 241-43).
From that point, the record contains no relevant medical evidence until February 1, 2011,
when the claimant presented to the Northwest Alabama Mental Health Center. She noted she had
been a client over 20 years prior and sought to re-establish herself as a patient. The claimant told
therapist Sondra Wightman that her symptoms of depression, anxiety, and panic attacks had
increased; that simple activities such as walking down the sidewalk or stopping at a red light
cause her to have panic attacks because she “thinks people are staring at her”; that she previously

4

attempted suicide in 1990 and was hospitalized as a result; and that she thought of suicide again
“two months ago, after a really bad day at work.” (R. 260).
Regarding her interests, the claimant told Ms. Wightman that she “does not have a lot of
interest or energy,” aside from watching television at home. Ms. Wightman noted that the
claimant’s current depressive state, along with her anxiety and panic attacks, cause emotional
discomfort and impairs her ability to “enjoy daily activities to the fullest and perform
appropriately at work.” (R. 260).
Between August 26, 2011 and September 24, 2013, the claimant continued her therapy
sessions with Ms. Wightman at the Northwest Alabama Mental Health Center. Based on Ms.
Wightman’s notes, the psychiatrist diagnosed the claimant with “severe” major depressive
disorder and prescribed her Paroxetine and Bupropion for depression and anxiety. 1 (R. 254-94,
348-50).
The claimant visited Dr. Arthur Patton, an internal medicine doctor at Norwood Clinic,
for the first time on September 24, 2013, complaining of a severe migraine headache “like her
usual migraines, only worse.” During his physical examination of the claimant, Dr. Patton noted
that the claimant demonstrated “moderate pain behavior with vomiting.” Dr. Patton diagnosed
the claimant with a migraine headache and ordered injections of Phenergan and Toradol, and
prescribed acetaminophen. (R. 246-47).
Between September 24, 2013 and December 3, 2014, the claimant continued meeting
with Ms. Wightman who noted that her conditions remained the same. The claimant repeatedly
stated that she was depressed and lacked energy. (R. 252, 269, 299, 301-02, 304, 306-07, 309,
311-12, 314-19, 321-22, 324, 326, 330).

1

The only record showing the psychiatrist’s name is an unidentifiable signature.
5

On December 3, 2014, the claimant saw Dr. John Cantrell, an internal medicine doctor at
St. Vincent’s Gardendale Clinic, seeking to become a patient. She explained her history with
depression and anxiety and stated that her migraines had worsened in the past two months. Dr.
Cantrell noted the claimant’s anxiety and depression as “abnormal,” and further noted a finding
of pain and RPS in her right hand. Dr. Cantrell diagnosed the claimant with obsessive
compulsive disorder (OCD), migraines, joint pain, insomnia, chronic pain syndrome, and
depression. He prescribed acetaminophen for her migraines, Lyrica and Zanaflex for chronic
pain, and Paxil and Wellbutrin for depression and OCD. (R 404-07).
One month later, on January 2, 2015, the claimant returned to Dr. Cantrell. She stated that
she could not afford Lyrica; had an eating disorder, chronic pain syndrome, and depression; and
wanted to know if she could be tested for fibromyalgia. She further informed Dr. Cantrell that
she was filing for disability because she could not work. During his physical examination, Dr.
Cantrell noted the same findings as the prior appointment. Dr. Cantrell advised the claimant to
stop taking Lyrica and continue taking Zanaflex for chronic pain. (R. 400-02, 508-10).
At the request of the Social Security Administration, the claimant completed a “Function
Report-Adult” on January 8, 2015. In that report, the claimant stated that, because of her pain
and OCD, she “takes longer” to dress and bathe. The claimant further stated that the “pain and
stiffness” of her right hand does not allow her to use utensils while eating and causes difficulty
when shaving. She never cooks; she just prepares “easy microwave meals and sandwiches”; can
clean the house; can do laundry once a week with the help of her mother; cannot do yard work
because of “anxiety and panic attacks, severe fatigue and pain”; can drive alone, but only for
“short distances [because of] panic attacks”; shops for groceries and personal care items twice a
month for “around an hour and a half to two hours.” (R. 191-96, 199).

6

Regarding her interests and activities, the claimant reported that she only watches
television during the day if she does not have a migraine. The claimant explained watching
television “seems to help some with [her] depression.” The claimant further reported that,
because of her social anxiety, she has no friends and only spends time with her mother, sister,
and father. In addition, the claimant mentioned she has anger problems and “can fly off the
handle” when interacting with others. She mentioned she does not go anywhere on a regular
basis, with the exception of doctor’s visits “about two to three a month” and running errands
“about twice a month.” She explained that during these outings, her mother usually comes along;
however if she does not, the claimant can still go alone but she experiences more panic attacks.
(R. 196-97, 199).
Concerning her abilities, the claimant mentioned she has “pain and stiffness all over” and
experiences severe pain and difficulty when lifting, squatting, bending, standing, reaching,
walking, kneeling, talking, climbing stairs, completing tasks, concentrating, understanding,
following instructions, using her hands, and getting along with others. The claimant stated that
she can walk for “about fifteen minutes” before needing to stop and rest anywhere from “five to
ten minutes” before she can resume walking. The claimant reported that she can only pay
attention for “one to two minutes”; does not finish what she starts; does not follow written or
spoken instructions well; does not get along with authority figures well; has been fired because
of problems getting along with other people; does not handle stress or routine changes well; and
has noticed increased “fear that something bad is going to happen” and as a result, she “mostly
just want[s] to lay in bed and not get up.” (R. 197-98).
The same day, the claimant’s mother, Mary Evelyn Pennington, completed a “Function
Report-Adult-Third Party” similar to the report completed by the claimant. Ms. Pennington

7

reported that the claimant’s migraines, depression, and pain “keep her in bed a lot,” and that she
“stays extremely nervous and has trouble sleeping without mental health prescriptions.”
Regarding the claimant’s personal care, Ms. Pennington’s statements were identical to the
claimant’s in that the pain and OCD make it difficult for her to perform simple tasks. Ms.
Pennington explained that she takes the claimant food because the claimant can only prepare
“cereal or frozen dinners.” In addition, Ms. Pennington explained that she cuts the claimant’s
grass and helps her with laundry and cleaning because the claimant is “not able and gets too
stressed.” Ms. Pennington further stated that it is “hard for [the claimant] to go out because of
panic attacks and depression,” and when the claimant does go out, she is “usually with [the
claimant].” (R. 183-87).
Concerning the claimant’s interests, abilities, and activities, Ms. Pennington’s statements
were reflective of the claimant’s. Ms. Pennington mentioned the claimant’s only activity is
watching television; she only spends time with family because of her social anxiety; she does not
go out on a regular basis because of depression and panic attacks; and her pain and stiffness
affect any movement she makes. Furthermore, Ms. Pennington stated the claimant “has trouble
concentrating” on written instructions; does not follow spoken instructions well; does not get
along well with authority figures; does not handle stress or routine changes well; and “seems to
be more depressed and nervous.” (R. 187-89).
On January 19, 2015, at the request of Dr. Cantrell, the claimant met with Dr. Gene
Watterson at Alabama Orthopedic, Spine, & Sports Medicine Associates. She complained of a
“suspected diagnosis of fibromyalgia.” After the claimant described continued pain, Dr.
Watterson performed a physical exam in which he noted that the pain stemmed from tender

8

points; as a result, Dr. Watterson determined that his findings and the claimant’s pain as
mentioned supported a diagnosis of fibromyalgia. (R. 417, 420).
At the request of the Social Security Administration, the claimant met with Dr. Susan
Corbin at Jasper Medical & Psychological Associates. The claimant informed Dr. Corbin that
she lost ten pounds in the past two months because of her eating disorder. The claimant
additionally stated that she began having depressive symptoms when she was a child, having
overdosed on Tylenol at age ten. The claimant reported two additional suicide attempts: one at
age twenty-two and one at age seventeen. 2 She explained to Dr. Corbin that she “often had
suicidal ideations and may make plans but she would not follow through because it would really
hurt her family.” (R. 435-36).
When asked to describe her state of mind the past month, the claimant stated she had
been “depressed and anxious”; “was often worried something bad would happen”; and had panic
attacks anytime she believed people were looking at her. Dr. Corbin noted that the claimant
showed “evidence of a marked impairment in her social relating” and that she “seemed to be
quite disabled by her various reported psychiatric problems.” Dr. Corbin diagnosed the claimant
with major depressive disorder, panic disorder, and OCD. Dr. Corbin determined that “it is not
likely and perhaps not a good idea for her to try to work as long as she is struggling with the
cognitive symptoms of her various conditions.” (R. 436-39).
Between January 13 and April 1, 2015, the claimant had four sessions with Ms.
Wightman who noted that the claimant’s conditions remained the same. The claimant repeatedly
stated that her depressive symptoms were not subsiding. (R. 421-33).

2

The record does not contain any objective medical evidence regarding the discussed suicide
attempts.
9

Between April 1, 2015 and June 24, 2015, the claimant had three visits with Dr.
Watterson. During each visit, Dr. Watterson noted the claimant’s condition remained unchanged
because she still experienced depressive symptoms and fibromyalgia pain. Dr. Watterson
continued to prescribe the claimant Wellbutrin, Trazodone, Paxil, and acetaminophen. (R. 48990).
On September 2, 2015, the claimant again met with Dr. Patton at Norwood Clinic,
seeking to re-establish herself as his patient. She informed Dr. Patton that she had experienced
difficulty in sleeping because of her migraines and fibromyalgia. Dr. Patton noted that the
claimant appeared anxious. He prescribed Topamax to help with her sleeping difficulties and
refilled acetaminophen and Paxil prescriptions. (R. 558, 562).
From September 2, 2015 to June 1, 2016, the claimant had nine session with Ms.
Wightman who noted that her conditions remained unchanged. The claimant stated multiple
times that her depression was worsening. (R. 534-75).
The record contains no additional relevant medical evidence until January 25, 2016, when
the claimant met with Dr. Brian Maloney, a psychiatrist, at Dr. Patton’s referral. During that
visit, Dr. Maloney gave the claimant a form called the “Geriatric Depression Scale” to complete.
The claimant stated on the form that she is not satisfied with her life; has not discontinued any
activities and interests; feels her life is empty; often gets bored; is afraid that something bad is
going to happen to her; does not feel happy most of the time; does not feel helpless; prefers to
stay home; has memory problems; does not think “it’s wonderful to be alive”; feels worthless;
does not have energy; and thinks that “most people are better off than [her].” However she also
stated that she “does not feel her situation is hopeless.” Upon completing the evaluation, the

10

claimant’s score was “10.” 3 The claimant informed Dr. Maloney of her history with depression
and her difficulty working. Specifically, the claimant explained her anxiety levels were so high
that she would “leave the room with patients because [she] couldn’t think and felt like [she] was
going to lose control.” She further stated that she reached the point where her anxiety prevents
her from getting out of her car. Between then and July 29, 2016, the claimant continued to see
Dr. Maloney once a month. At each visit, she completed the same “Geriatric Depression Scale,”
and her answers remained the same. (R. 512-33).
On February 17, 2016, the claimant again presented to Norwood Clinic to meet with Dr.
Patton. She complained of “significant fatigue,” and reported “difficulty in getting activities of
daily living performed.” Dr. Patton determined that “depression and worry and nerve condition
largely contributed to her feeling poorly.” He prescribed the claimant Topamax to assist with
sleeping and migraines. (R. 548-53).
On June 20, 2016, the claimant met with Dr. Patton again, complaining of worsening
fibromyalgia symptoms and headaches. The claimant’s mother informed Dr. Patton that “she
frequently remains in her room or in bed complaining of headaches and feeling poorly.” Dr.
Patton prescribed the claimant Topamax to improve headache control and sleep quality. (R. 53942).
On June 22, 2016, Dr. Patton sent a letter to the Social Security Administration,
explaining that she had treated the claimant “for many years.” She indicated that the claimant
has “chronic health problems with history of anxiety disorder with obsessive-compulsive
features, chronic migraine headaches, insomnia, prior diagnosis of fibromyalgia and prior
diagnosis of reflex sympathetic dystrophy.” Dr. Patton acknowledged that the claimant

3

A score greater than “5” indicates probable depression.
11

“continues to struggle with mental health problems” and has difficulty “leav[ing] her house.”
Dr. Patton stated that the claimant’s multiple physical and mental problems have “evidenced
chronicity to the point where [he] believes she is no longer employable and should seek Social
Security Disability.” At the end of her letter, Dr. Patton stated that “[f]or additional information,
please contact [her] office.” (R. 537-38).
The claimant called Dr. Patton’s office on June 29, 2016 complaining that she could not
“tell any difference” on the Topamax and reported continuing to have two migraines a week. Dr.
Patton wanted to continue the claimant on 100 mg of Topamax nightly for several more weeks
before making any other medication changes. (R. 536).
The ALJ Hearing
At the hearing before the ALJ on August 31, 2016, the claimant testified she worked as a
physical therapist assistant from 1995 to December 28, 2014. She stated she quit working
because she felt “so overwhelmed” because of her anxiety and depression and felt a “heavy
weight and burden on [her] chest all the time.” The claimant further stated that “every time [she]
would get under stress [she] would have migraines and panic attacks and [she] just couldn’t deal
with stress and working with people.” (R. 40, 52).
When asked why she cannot work, the claimant testified that her anxiety and depression
rose to such a high level that she was afraid she would “end up hurting a patient or [herself] if
[she] kept going like that.” She stated that she could not go to work because of her anxiety at
times. The claimant explained that, when she has anxiety attacks, she feels as if she has to escape
from where she is and has “this overwhelming feeling that something bad is going to happen.”
She testified that her attacks can vary, sometimes lasting up to five minutes or more. She further
testified that she experiences “at least one or two” attacks whenever she is around people and

12

that sometimes her attacks become so severe that she cannot leave her house. When her attacks
reach that level of severity, the claimant stays in her bed in the “fetal position” with the
television on in the background. (R. 41-43).
In addition to anxiety and depression, the claimant also discussed her problems with
OCD. The claimant testified that she repetitively checks things and it “takes [her] a lot longer to
do anything than it does a regular person” because she is “very particular in how she does
everything.” She stated that her condition has worsened over the last several years. She takes
Paxil, but it “just doesn’t seem to be helping as much as it used to.” (R. 49).
Regarding her physical problems, the claimant mentioned she began experiencing
migraines when she was twelve years old. While she was working, the claimant would have to
take “six or eight” Extra Strength Acetaminophen to prevent nausea and vomiting so that she
could continue to work, and not lose her job. (R. 44).
In addition to migraines, the claimant also discussed her problems with fibromyalgia.
When asked how it affects her, the claimant explained she “basically hurts all the time,” in her
“hands, back, and knees.” She stated that she tested positive for tender points, supporting a
diagnosis of fibromyalgia. The claimant testified that her condition allows her to sit for “up to
one hour” and walk “up to ten minutes.” The claimant further testified that she has to lie down
for six out of eight hours in a day because of her pain. (R. 46-47).
Next, the claimant discussed her problems with reflex sympathetic dystrophy. The
claimant testified that she was in an automobile wreck in November 2007 and broke her right
hand. She explained that her right hand—her dominant hand—is now in a cast, “a lot weaker,”
and “a lot more stiff and painful.” The claimant stated that she cannot “pick up heavier objects”
with her right hand since the accident, but her left hand has not decreased in ability. She

13

explained that she cannot pick up a gallon of milk with her right hand but can do so with her left,
or both. The claimant explained that she can pour coffee and prepare a bowl of cereal. The
claimant also mentioned that her RSD has worsened since she had the accident. (R. 48-51).
In describing a typical day, the claimant explained that she wakes up, drinks coffee,
watches television and goes back to bed. She stated that she “basically stays in bed most of the
day,” except when she gets up to eat. She testified that she does not participate in any social
activities or have any friends because of her social anxiety. When asked if her medication
helped, the claimant mentioned that if she “wasn’t on it, it would be worse,” but “it just doesn’t
seem to help as much as it used to.” (R. 55-58).
The claimant explained that, since she quit her job in December 2014, her condition grew
worse and her parents moved in to “keep [her] from doing any real harm to herself.” The
claimant stated that her mother does “everything,” such as cooking, washing dishes, and laundry.
The claimant explained that her OCD causes her to repeat tasks to satisfy herself, in turn creating
anxiety to the point where she cannot perform any tasks. (R. 55-58).
A vocational expert, Ms. Civils, testified concerning the type and availability of jobs that
claimant can perform. Ms. Civils testified that the claimant’s past relevant work is a physical
therapy assistant, classified as medium, skilled work; however, she explained that the record
indicated the claimant performed at the “very heavy level.” The ALJ asked Ms. Civils to assume
a hypothetical individual the same age, education, and experience as the claimant who is limited
to performing simple, repetitive, noncomplex tasks at the medium exertional level; cannot meet
productions goals or quotas; can only have casual contact with the general public; and can
occasionally stoop and crouch. Ms. Civils testified that individual could not perform the
claimant’s past work, but that individual could work as a “laundry worker,” classified as

14

medium, unskilled work, with 600 jobs in Alabama and 50,000 jobs nationally; “cook helper,”
classified as medium, unskilled work, with 3,800 jobs in Alabama and 271,000 nationally;
“marker,” classified as light, unskilled work, with 900 jobs in Alabama and 70,000 nationally;
“cleaner/housekeeping,” classified as light, unskilled work, with 1,400 jobs in Alabama and
137,000 jobs nationally; “table worker/inspector sorter,” classified as sedentary, unskilled work,
with 700 jobs in Alabama and 35,000 nationally; and “document preparer/scanning,” classified
as sedentary, unskilled work, with 500 jobs in Alabama and 46,000 nationally. (R. 59-62, 65).
In his second hypothetical, the ALJ asked Ms. Civils to assume all of the prior limitations
except that the individual “can only occasionally” push or pull. Ms. Civils testified that
individual could perform the work of “marker,” “table worker/inspector sorter,” and “document
preparer.” (R. 63).
In his third hypothetical, the ALJ asked Ms. Civils to consider the original hypothetical
except that the individual can only sit for one hour. Ms. Civils testified that individual could
work as a “table worker/inspector sorter,” “marker,” and “cleaner/housekeeping.” The ALJ then
asked Ms. Civils to consider that individual only being able to stand or walk for ten minutes. Ms.
Civils testified that individual could perform sedentary work such as “table worker/inspector
sorter,” and “document preparer/scanning.” (R. 64).
Finally, the ALJ asked Ms. Civils to assume the limitations of the original hypothetical
except that the individual can only engage in occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors.
Ms. Civils testified that individual could perform work as a “marker” and as a “laundry worker.”
When the ALJ asked Ms. Civils to consider if the claimant could not have any contact with
coworkers, supervisors, or the general public, she testified that the claimant could not work at

15

any of the jobs she mentioned. She further stated that the claimant could not work if she needed
to lie down “between one to two hours during a work tour.” (R. 65-66).
The ALJ’s Decision
On January 24, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding that the claimant was not
disabled under the Social Security Act. First, the ALJ found that the claimant met the insured
status requirement of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2018, and had not engaged
in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date of December 28, 2014. (R. 20).
Next, the ALJ found that the claimant had the severe impairments of major depressive
disorder, recurrent, without psychotic features; anxiety; complex regional pain syndrome;
fibromyalgia; and migraine headaches. The ALJ next found that the claimant did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of
the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. 20.)
The ALJ considered whether the claimant met the criteria for Listings 12.04 and 12.06,
but concluded that the claimant only had moderate restrictions in her daily living and social
functioning and moderate limitations in her ability to maintain concentration, persistence, or
pace. To support his conclusion, the ALJ noted the claimant’s abilities “to fix simple meals like
cereal,” to drive a car, and to perform household chores once a week with assistance.
Additionally, the ALJ noted the claimant’s abilities to socialize with her family and go to the
grocery store twice a month; the fact that the claimant spends most of her time watching
television, “which requires some concentration to perform”; and the fact that “the claimant
reportedly has a short temper with authority but has never been terminated from a job for failing
to get along with others.” (R. 20-21).

16

Next, the ALJ determined that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work but can perform only simple, repetitive, non-complex tasks; cannot meet
production goals or quotas; can have casual contact with the general public; can occasionally
stoop, crouch, push, and pull; and can have occasional contact with supervisors and coworkers.
(R. 22).
In making this finding, the ALJ considered the claimant’s symptoms and corresponding
medical record. The ALJ concluded that, although the claimant’s medically determinable
impairments could reasonably be expected to cause her symptoms, the claimant’s allegations
regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were inconsistent
with the evidence. Specifically, the ALJ noted that the claimant was able to return to work
following her right hand fracture and that she did not follow-up regarding that condition. He also
stated that, although the claimant continuously sought mental health treatment, she reported that
her “medication helps with some of her symptoms.” Regarding her fibromyalgia, because the
claimant stopped her follow-up appointments for three months, the ALJ found that her symptoms
were not at the level she reported. The ALJ further noted that the claimant was still experiencing
weekly headaches as recently as June 2016; however he ultimately determined that her
symptoms were not equivalent to her complaints. (R. 23-24).
The ALJ gave little weight to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician Dr. Patton.
In making this determination, the ALJ reasoned that “whether the claimant is disabled is an issue
reserved to the Commissioner.” The ALJ further articulated without explanation that the
claimant’s treating records “do not support an inability to work at all exertional levels.”
In addition, the ALJ mentioned consultative examiner Dr. Corbin’s opinion but did not
state the weight he gave it because “Dr. Corbin did not provide any specific functional

17

limitations based on her evaluation.” The ALJ also indicated that his residual functioning
capacity determination was “supported by” the “psychological evaluation by Dr. Corbin.” (R.
24-25).
Finally, the ALJ found that the claimant was unable to perform any of her past relevant
work, but could work as a “marker,” with 900 jobs in the state of Alabama and 70,000 in the
nation. In making this determination, the ALJ relied on the testimony of the vocational expert
Ms. Civils, who testified that the claimant would be able to perform occupations at the light level
of exertion. Thus, the ALJ concluded that the claimant was not disabled as defined under the
Social Security Act. (R. 26).
DISCUSSION
The claimant argues that the ALJ erred in failing to state the weight he gave to the
opinion of the consultative examiner Dr. Susan Corbin and in his description of the substance of
Dr. Corbin’s opinion. This court agrees.
The ALJ did not state the weight he gave the opinion of Dr. Corbin, a consulting,
examining psychologist hired by the Social Security Administration to evaluate the claimant.
The ALJ mentioned Dr. Corbin’s opinion and stated, with no explanation, that it supported the
ALJ’s residual functioning capacity determination. But, he failed to state or explain with any
particularity the weight he gave that opinion. The ALJ’s failure to do so was reversible error.
See Romeo, 686 F. App’x at 732 (failure of the ALJ to state with particularity the weight given to
a medical opinion is reversible error).
Not only did the ALJ fail to state with particularity the weight he afforded Dr. Corbin’s
opinion, his minimal assessment of that opinion was incorrect. The ALJ stated that “Dr. Corbin
did not provide any specific functional limitations based on her evaluation.” (R. 24). To the

18

contrary, Dr. Corbin specifically stated that the claimant showed “evidence of a marked
impairment in her social relating” and that she “seemed to be quite disabled by her various
reported psychiatric problems.” Dr. Corbin’s opinion that the claimant had marked impairment
in social relating that severely affected her ability to work contains a specific functional
limitation.
Also, contrary to the ALJ’s finding, Dr. Corbin’s opinion regarding this marked
impairment in social functioning did not support the ALJ’s residual functioning capacity
assessment that the claimant can have casual contact with the general public and occasional
contact with supervisors and coworkers. If the ALJ had given great weight to Dr. Corbin’s
opinion regarding a marked impairment in social functioning, that weight may have changed the
ALJ’s residual functioning capacity finding regarding social functioning limitations. However,
because the ALJ failed to acknowledge or give weight to Dr. Corbin’s opinion about this marked
limitation, the court cannot speculate regarding what weight the ALJ gave this opinion.
The court finds that the ALJ’s failure to state with particularity the weight given to Dr.
Corbin’s opinion is reversible error.
Other Concerns
Treating Physician’s Opinion
The court also expresses concern about the ALJ’s failure to explain with more
particularity the little weight given to the claimant’s treating physician Dr. Patton’s medical
opinion. The court agrees with the ALJ that the ultimate determination of disability lies with the
ALJ. However, to disregard Dr. Patton’s opinion that the claimant’s chronic mental conditions
limit the claimant’s ability to “leave her house” or work on a full-time basis, the ALJ must do

19

more than give a conclusory statement that the claimant’s treating records “do not support an
inability to work at all exertional levels.”
Dr. Patton treated the claimant for her medical conditions for many years and his opinion
took into account his personal treatment of her and his knowledge of the severity of her
conditions. Dr. Patton, as the claimant’s treating physician, occupies the unique position to give
his opinion concerning the severity of the claimant’s medical conditions. “Generally, [the ALJ]
give[s] more weight to medical opinions from . . . treating sources, since these sources are likely
to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your
medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot
be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual
examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” See 20 C.F.R. §
416.927(c).
On remand, the ALJ should reconsider or at the very least state and explain with more
particularity his reasons for discounting treating physician Dr. Patton’s medical opinion
regarding the severity of the claimant’s conditions.
Evaluation of Activities of Daily Living
In assessing the claimant’s subjective allegations of the limiting effects of her mental
conditions, the ALJ found that the claimant’s activities of daily living showed that she was not as
limited as she claimed. The court shares the claimant’s concern that substantial evidence does
not support the ALJ’s assessment of the claimant’s activities of daily living. The facts that the
claimant can pour coffee, drive a car, prepare microwavable meals and cereal, and used to
perform household chores once a week with assistance do not negate the claimant’s chronic pain
and anxiety that would prevent her from working a normal eight-hour day. The claimant does not

20

claim to be an invalid who cannot do anything at all for herself, but instead claims that her
physical and mental conditions severely limit her ability to work a normal workday. See Smith v.
Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 971-72 (3d Cir. 1981) (“Disability does not mean that a claimant must
vegetate in a dark room excluded from all forms of human and social activity.”). Just because the
claimant can occasionally perform simple tasks on a very limited basis does not mean that the
claimant does not have severe limitations that would prevent her from completing a typical eighthour workday.
Additionally, the ALJ claims that the fact the claimant watches television indicates her
ability to concentrate in a work environment. The ALJ chose to disregard the fact that the
claimant watches television to “help with [her] depression.” Furthermore, he omitted the
significant fact that the claimant stated she sometimes leaves the television on as background
noise when she is hidden in her bed in the fetal position while experiencing an anxiety attack.
Contrary to the ALJ’s finding, the ability to watch television in an effort to ease depressive
symptoms does not reflect an ability to concentrate and work an eight-hour work day.
Moreover, the fact that the claimant goes to the grocery store twice a month does not
demonstrate a lack of social anxiety. The record indicates that the claimant’s mother typically
accompanies her, but when she does not, the claimant admitted to experiencing more panic
attacks. Additionally, the ALJ found that the fact that the claimant spends time with her family
does not reflect someone with severe anxiety. However, the ALJ also noted that the claimant
“does not participate in any social activities outside of her family,” but somehow still arrived at
the same conclusion. He disregarded the fact that the claimant mentioned she does not have any
friends and does not go anywhere on a regular basis, with the exception of running errands a few
times a month.

21

On remand, the ALJ should explain how the claimant’s daily activities specifically
contradict the limitations that the claimant alleges prevents her from working on a full-time
basis.
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner
is due to be REVERSED and REMANDED.
The court will enter a separate Order in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2019.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22