McKeller v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Ott on 8/14/2015. (KAM, )
2015 Aug-14 PM 03:57
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Case No. 7:14-cv-01280-JEO
Plaintiff Jacqueline Deloris McKeller brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her applications for disability
insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). (Doc. 1).1 The case
has been assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
this court’s general order of reference. The parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of this court for disposition of the matter. (Doc. 9). See 28 U.S.C. §
636(c), FED. R. CIV. P. 73(a). Upon review of the record and the relevant law, the
undersigned finds that the Commissioner’s decision is due to be affirmed.
References herein to “Doc(s). __” are to the document numbers assigned by the Clerk of
the Court to the pleadings, motions, and other materials in the court file, as reflected on the
docket sheet in the court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In January 2011, McKeller filed applications for disability insurance
benefits and SSI, alleging disability beginning December 10, 2010. (R. 180-88).2
Her applications were denied by the State Agency. (R. 112-13). She then
requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which was held
on August 1, 2012. (R. 60-104). McKeller, her counsel, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) attended the hearing. (R. 60). The ALJ issued a decision on November
16, 2012, finding that McKeller was not entitled to benefits. (R. 38-54).
McKeller requested the Appeals Council to review the ALJ’s decision. (R.
30). The Appeals Council denied McKeller’s request for review on May 7, 2014.
(R. 1-5). On that date, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner. McKeller then filed this action for judicial review under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). (Doc. 1).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is narrowly
circumscribed. The function of the court is to determine whether the decision of
the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and whether proper legal
References herein to “R.___” are to the page number of the administrative record, which
is encompassed within Docs. 6-1 through 6-17.
standards were applied. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 91 S. Ct. 1420,
1422 (1971); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002). This
court must “scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is
reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703
F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence
as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. It
is “more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Id.
The court must uphold factual findings that are supported by substantial
evidence. However, it reviews the ALJ’s legal conclusions de novo because no
presumption of validity attaches to the ALJ’s determination of the proper legal
standards to be applied. Davis v. Shalala, 985 F.2d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 1993). If
the court finds an error in the ALJ’s application of the law, or if the ALJ fails to
provide the court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal
analysis has been conducted, it must reverse the ALJ’s decision. See Cornelius v.
Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991).
III. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
To qualify for disability benefits and SSI under the Social Security Act, a
claimant must show the inability 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42
U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). A physical or mental impairment is “an impairment that
results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are
demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic
techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(D).
Determination of disability under the Social Security Act requires a five
step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4). Specifically, the
Commissioner must determine in sequence:
whether the claimant: (1) is unable to engage in substantial gainful
activity; (2) has a severe medically determinable physical or mental
impairment; (3) has such an impairment that meets or equals a Listing
and meets the duration requirements; (4) can perform [her] past relevant
work, in light of [her] residual functional capacity; and (5) can make an
adjustment to other work, in light of [her] residual functional capacity,
age, education, and work experience.
Evans v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 551 F. App’x 521, 524 (11th Cir. 2014)3 (citing 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)). “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
Unpublished opinions of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals are not considered
binding precedent; however, they may be cited as persuasive authority. 11th Cir. R. 36-2.
determination of ‘not disabled.’” McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th
Cir. 1986). “Once a finding is made that a claimant cannot return to prior work
the burden shifts to the [Commissioner] to show other work the claimant can do.”
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The
Commissioner must further show that such work exists in the national economy in
significant numbers. Id.; Evans, 551 F. App’x at 524.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE ALJ
McKeller was 36 years old at the time of her hearing before the ALJ. (R.
66). She has a high school equivalency degree and past relevant work experience
as a server and waitress, counter attendant, fast food worker, housekeeper, and
kitchen helper. (R. 67, 90-91). She alleges in her disability report that she has
been unable to work since December 10, 2010, due to carpal tunnel syndrome in
both wrists and grogginess from her medications. (R. 232).
The ALJ found that McKeller had severe impairments of carpal tunnel
syndrome and arthritis, but that her impairments, alone and in combination, did not
meet or medically equal the severity of one of the listed impairments in the
Listings.4 (R. 43, 46).
The Listings are located at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1.
The ALJ then found that McKeller had the residual functional capacity5
(“RFC”) to perform light work, subject to the following limitations: she can
push/pull frequently with the right upper extremity, constantly with the left upper
extremity, and constantly with the lower extremities bilaterally; she can frequently
climb ramps and stairs, but never climb ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; she can
frequently balance, stoop, kneel, and crouch, but can only occasionally crawl; she
can reach, handle, finger, and feel frequently with the right upper extremity and
constantly with the left upper extremity; and she can never work in environments
with exposure to hazardous conditions such as unprotected heights and moving
machinery. (R. 46).
Premised on the testimony of the VE, the ALJ determined that McKeller
could perform her past relevant work as a server, counter attendant, fast food
worker, and housekeeper. (R. 52, 90-92). Alternatively, the ALJ found that there
are other jobs in the national economy that McKeller is capable of performing. (R.
52-53, 92-93). The ALJ thus concluded that McKeller was not disabled. (R. 5354).
Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can do despite her impairment(s).
See 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a)(1).
McKeller argues that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by
substantial evidence and should be reversed or remanded for two reasons. First,
McKeller argues that the ALJ failed to give adequate weight to the opinion of one
of her treating physicians, Dr. Cynthia Mouton, who stated in a treatment note that
McKeller had many reasons to be depressed and is disabled due to carpal tunnel
syndrome. (Doc. 10 at 9-10). Second, McKeller argues that the ALJ failed to
properly evaluate the opinions of Dr. John Goff, a consultative psychologist who
examined her in April 2012. (Doc. 10 at 10-12). The Commissioner responds that
the ALJ properly considered the opinions of the medical sources who treated and
examined McKeller and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.
(Doc. 11 at 4-16).
Dr. Mouton’s Opinion
Dr. Mouton examined McKeller on November 23, 2011.6 (R. 705-708).
Dr. Mouton acknowledged in her treatment notes that “we do not have records on
any of [the] reports [McKeller] has mentioned” regarding surgery on her right
carpal tunnel in April 2011 and the problems she allegedly continued to have
Dr. Mouton also examined McKeller on July 29, 2011. (R. 365-69). McKeller makes no
contention that the ALJ failed to give proper consideration to Dr. Mouton’s assessment from that
following the surgery. (R. 705). Dr. Mouton’s medical findings indicated that
McKeller’s right hand had “weakness” and “moderately reduced” range of motion
and that her left hand had “weakness” and “decreased” range of motion. (R. 707).
Dr. Mouton noted that McKeller’s carpal tunnel syndrome had not resolved, that
she continued to have pain, that she had a “knot” on her right wrist, and that she
was resistant to the non-medical and surgical options presented to her. (R. 708).
Dr. Mouton ordered an x-ray of McKeller’s right wrist, which revealed signs of
early osteoarthritis in the right hand and wrist but no fracture or dislocation. (R.
708-709). In a separate section of her treatment notes discussing depression, Dr.
Mouton commented: “[McKeller] has many reasons to be depressed. She does not
admit to depression, but she is disabled due to CTS [carpal tunnel syndrome] and
has unsuccessful treatment and has not worked since April of 2011.” (R. 708).
“Absent good cause, an ALJ is to give the medical opinions of treating
physicians substantial or considerable weight.”7 Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
The court notes that Dr. Mouton examined McKeller on only two occasions, in July and
November 2011. (R. 365-69, 705-08). Because it appears that Dr. Mouton may not have had an
ongoing treatment relationship with McKeller, it is questionable whether she is a “treating
physician” with respect to McKeller. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502 (“Treating source means your
own physician, psychologist, or other acceptable medical source who provides you, or has
provided you, with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing
treatment relationship with you. Generally, we will consider that you have an ongoing treatment
relationship with an acceptable medical source when the medical evidence establishes that you
see, or have seen, the source with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the
type of treatment and/or evaluation required for your medical condition(s).”). Nonetheless, for
purposes of this opinion the court will assume that Dr. Mouton is a treating physician.
631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 20011) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the ALJ determined that
Dr. Mouton’s opinion was entitled to “little weight.” (R. 51). McKeller
challenges this determination, arguing that “[i]f given proper weight, Dr.
Mouton’s opinion that [she] is disabled due to her carpal tunnel syndrome and
depression would render [her] incapable of performing any work-related
activities.”8 (Doc. 10 at 10). She contends that because the ALJ failed to accord
“adequate weight” to Dr. Mouton’s opinion, the ALJ’s decision is not based upon
substantial evidence. (Id.) The court disagrees.
First, as the ALJ noted in her decision, an opinion from a physician that a
claimant is “disabled” is not a medical opinion; it is an opinion on an issue
reserved to the Commissioner. (R. 51); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d);
Eyre v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F. App’x 521, 523 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he
ALJ, not a claimant’s physician, is responsible for determining whether a claimant
is statutorily disabled.”). Such an opinion is not entitled to “any special
significance.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d); see Social Security Ruling
McKeller’s characterization of Dr. Mouton’s opinion is not accurate. Dr. Mouton did
not state that McKeller is disabled due to both carpal tunnel syndrome and depression, but only
due to carpal tunnel syndrome. (See R. 708).
(SSR) 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, *5 (July 2, 1996) (“Medical sources often offer
opinions about whether an individual who has applied for ... disability benefits is
‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work,’ or make similar statements or opinions. ... Such
opinions on these issues must not be disregarded. However, even when offered by
a treating source, they can never be entitled to controlling weight or given special
significance.”). Therefore, as the ALJ correctly observed, Dr. Mouton’s statement
that McKeller is “disabled” was not entitled to any special significance.
Second, “[d]isability is determined by the effect an impairment has on the
claimant’s ability to work, rather than the diagnosis of an impairment itself.”
Davis v. Barnhart, 153 F. App’x 569, 572 (11th Cir. 2005); see 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(1)(A) (“The term ‘disability’ means inability to engage in substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental
impairment....”). Here, Dr. Mouton stated that McKeller is disabled due to carpal
tunnel syndrome, but did not explain how the carpal tunnel syndrome affects or
limits McKeller’s ability to work. In fact, nowhere in Dr. Mouton’s treatment
notes did she offer any opinion on what McKeller can and cannot in light of her
carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Mouton’s mere diagnosis that McKeller suffers from
carpal tunnel syndrome, without any corresponding assessment of how the
impairment impacts her ability to work, is insufficient to establish that McKeller is
Third, Dr. Mouton provided no explanation for her statement that McKeller
is disabled due to carpal tunnel syndrome and failed to cite the medical evidence
supporting her statement. “A treating physician’s report may be discounted when
it is not accompanied by objective medical evidence or is wholly conclusory.”
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3),
416.927(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support
an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we
will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion,
the more weight we will give that opinion.”). Here, as noted, Dr. Mouton made
the conclusory statement that McKeller is “disabled due to CTS” in her comments
on why McKeller had reasons to be depressed, not in her separate comments on
McKeller’s carpal tunnel syndrome. (R. 707-08). Nowhere in her notes on
McKeller’s carpal tunnel syndrome did Dr. Mouton opine that McKeller is
disabled from that ailment or unable to perform any work-related activities.
Moreover, Dr. Mouton made the statement that McKeller is “disabled due to CTS”
without any further explanation. She did not explain how her medical findings
established that McKeller is disabled, particularly her findings that McKeller had
“weakness” and “moderately reduced” range of motion in her right hand and
“weakness” and “decreased” range of motion in her left hand. (R. 707). Dr.
Mouton also failed to explain how McKeller’s “resistan[ce] to non-medical or
surgical options presented” impacted her opinion. Given the absence of any
explanation for her statement that McKeller is disabled due to carpal tunnel
syndrome, and given that Dr. Mouton made the statement in the context of her
comments on McKeller’s depression, the ALJ was more than warranted in
discounting Dr. Mouton’s opinion.
Fourth, an ALJ has good cause for discounting a treating physician’s
opinion when the opinion is not bolstered by the evidence or when the evidence
supports a contrary finding. Eyre, 586 F. App’x at 523; Winschel v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). Dr. Mouton’s statement that
McKeller is disabled due to carpal tunnel syndrome is not bolstered by the
evidence in the record, which the ALJ thoroughly discussed in her decision. (R.
47-52). Rather, the evidence, including Dr. Mouton’s own medical findings,
supports the contrary finding made by the ALJ. As the ALJ noted, neither Dr.
Bryan Givhan, McKeller’s neorosurgeon, nor Dr. Thomas Patton, McKeller’s
neurologist, placed any restrictions on McKeller’s ability to work. (R. 51). As
the ALJ further noted:
While the claimant has continued to report that her carpal tunnel
syndrome remains symptomatic despite her surgery and post
operative physical therapy, treatment compliance has been an issue.
Office treatment notes from Dr. Thomas Patton ... indicated that the
claimant was not taking her carpal tunnel medication regularly or
wearing her wrist splint as prescribed. Dr. Bryan Givhan ... also
noted the claimant’s continued report of pain and indicated he was
not sure what was going on with her. Therefore, he ordered a new
series of electromyography and nerve conduction studies which
showed mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome on the right hand
and mild carpal tunnel syndrome on the [left].
In September and October 2011, the dosages of the claimant’s carpal
tunnel medication were increased. In November 2011, the claimant
presented to a treating physician [Dr. Mouton] with persistent
complaints of right carpal tunnel symptoms. However, with the
exception of only moderate weakness of the right hand and decreased
range of motion of the left hand, the claimant’s physical examination
was within normal limits. X-rays were performed and showed only
early osteoarthritis of the right hand. Dr. Cynthia Mouton, M.D.,
treated the claimant on only one occasion in November 2011. She
noted continuous treatment non-compliance as the claimant reported
not wearing braces/splints as prescribed. She further note[d] that the
claimant was resistant to any non-medical or surgical options
presented; including additional physical therapy and alternative
therapy such as yoga.
Notably, the claimant did not seek treatment again for carpal tunnel
problems until June 2012, at which time she presented for emergency
room treatment with complaints of wrist pain. However, she reported
her wrist pain was only level 2 in severity, indicating only mild pain.
Physical and neurological examinations of the hands and upper
extremities bilaterally were completely within normal limits and
showed no evidence of tenderness, sensory or motor deficits, or
As previously noted, the record reflects that Dr. Mouton also saw McKeller in July 2011.
vascular compromise. The fact that the claimant was repeatedly noncompliant with her treatment, refused to consider any other form of
treatment and went over 6 months without seeking treatment for her
carpal tunnel suggests that her carpal tunnel symptoms were not as
debilitating as alleged.
(R. 48 (exhibit citations omitted)).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the ALJ had good cause to discount Dr.
Mouton’s opinion and to give the opinion little weight. Substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s decision.
Dr. Goff’s Opinions
Dr. Goff, a consultative psychologist, examined McKeller on April 6, 2102.
(R. 695-700). Dr. Goff determined that McKeller was “functioning within the
borderline to low average range of psychometric intelligence”; that she was
“functionally literate”; that she was “very suspicious and paranoid and [that] there
may have been a decompensation in the past”; and that her “verbal memory
appears to be relatively poor.” (R. 700). His diagnosis included personality
disorder not otherwise specified, with borderline and paranoid features. (Id.) He
commented that McKeller’s personality disorder “seems to be the most obvious
impediment to vocational activity in general.”10
Dr. Goff also commented that McKeller “has impediments to any sort of vocational
activity requiring manual skills or manual dexterity because of [her] carpal tunnel symptoms,”
but he conceded that McKeller’s problems with her hands “do not lend themselves particularly
well to psychological diagnoses.” (R. 700).
Dr. Goff also completed a Medical Source Statement (Mental) on McKeller.
(R. 701-03). Among other assessments, Dr. Goff determined that McKeller has a
“marked” degree of impairment in her ability to interact with the general public;
an “extreme” degree of impairment in her ability to get along with coworkers or
peers; an “extreme” degree of impairment in her ability to maintain attention and
concentration for extended periods; a “marked” degree of impairment in her ability
to perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be
punctual within customary tolerances; a “marked” degree of impairment in her
ability to make simple work-related decisions; a “marked” degree of impairment in
her ability to respond appropriately to supervision; and an “extreme” degree of
impairment in her ability to respond to normal work pressures.” (Id.) At the same
time, he determined that McKeller has only a “mild” degree of impairment in her
ability to ask simple questions or request assistance; a “mild” degree of
impairment in her ability to understand, remember, and carry out simple
instructions and a “moderate” degree of impairment in her ability to understand,
remember, and carry out complex instructions and repetitive tasks; a “mild” degree
of impairment in her ability to sustain a routine without special supervision; and a
“mild” degree of impairment in her ability to respond appropriately to changes in
the work setting. (Id.)
Because Dr. Goff was not one of McKeller’s treating medical sources and
examined McKeller only once, his opinions were not entitled to any deference.
See Eyre, 586 F. App’x at 523 (“The ALJ owes no deference to the opinion of a
physician who conducted a single examination: as such a physician is not a
treating physician.”). The ALJ “carefully considered but placed only minimal
weight” on Dr. Goff’s opinions, concluding that they were “wholly inconsistent
with the evidence when considered in its entirety.” (R. 44). McKeller argues that
“the ALJ’s conclusions do not withstand scrutiny; there are indications of mental
impairment in the evidence of record, including the opinion of ... Dr. Mouton, who
concluded that [McKeller] was disabled due to depression.” (Doc. 10 at 12).
McKeller contends that “for failing to properly evaluate and state the weight given
to Dr. Goff’s opinion[s], the ALJ’s decision cannot be based upon substantial
evidence.” (Doc. 10 at 13). Again, McKeller’s contention lacks merit.
The court first notes that McKeller did not allege that her ability to work
was limited by any mental impairment in her disability report. (See R. 232). In
addition, as the ALJ observed in her decision, “no allegations of psychiatric and/or
psychological symptoms were ... alleged by the claimant at the hearing until [her]
attorney posed a hypothetical question to the vocational expert based on Dr.
Goff’s report.” (R. 44). Indeed, when the ALJ completed her examination of
McKeller at the hearing, the ALJ specifically asked McKeller whether there were
“[a]ny other problems” that were keeping her from working apart from the
physical problems she had testified to, and McKeller responded, “That would be
it.” (R. 89-90).
Moreover, although McKeller asserts that there are “indications of mental
impairment in the evidence of record,” the only evidence she cites is Dr. Mouton’s
statement that she has “many reasons to be depressed,” which McKeller
mischaracterizes as a conclusion that she is “disabled due to depression.” (Doc.
10 at 12). As previously noted by the court, Dr. Mouton never stated that
McKeller is disabled due to depression, and McKeller herself denied being
depressed. (R. 706, 708).
Finally, the ALJ provided a thorough discussion of the reasons why she
accorded Dr. Goff’s opinions minimal weight:
None of the symptoms or diagnoses set out in Dr. Goff’s report have
ever been reported or noted by any of the claimant’s medical
providers. In addition, the claimant’s mental status examinations by
all treating sources have always been within normal limits. ... [Dr.
Goff] noted the claimant would have difficulty with any type of
instructions, simple or complex but in her Function Report, the
claimant indicated having no problems ... completing task[s] or
following written or oral instructions. Dr. Goff indicated the claimant
exhibited problems with memory but during the clinical interview,
she was able to provide detailed and accurate background data
regarding her family, work, school and medical history. The other
documentary evidence contains no allegations of a disabling mental
impairment by the claimant. Indeed, when specifically asked about
depression by Dr. Cynthia Mouton, M.D., in November 2011, the
claimant denied any depression. ... It is of note that the claimant has
never required ongoing psychotropic pharmacology for treatment of a
mental impairment, she has no history of mental health treatment by a
psychiatrist or a mental health center and has never required
emergency room treatment or a hospitalization for a debilitating
The undersigned is of the opinion that the evidence fails to show
medical signs or laboratory findings sufficient to establish that brief
reactive psychosis, impulse control disorder or personalty disorder
with borderline and paranoid features are even medically
determinable mental impairments. However, assuming arguendo that
[they] are medically determinable mental impairments, the
documentary evidence as a whole fails to establish that the claimant
has any work-related limitations arising from these impairments.
(R. 44-45 (exhibit citation omitted)).11 As the above discussion reflects, the ALJ’s
determination that Dr. Goff’s opinions were entitled to only minimal weight is
supported by more than substantial evidence.
The Commissioner determined that McKeller was not disabled under the
Social Security Act. For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned concludes
that the Commissioner’s decision is due to be AFFIRMED.
The ALJ also stated that Dr. Goff opined that McKeller was “illiterate” (R. 44), but that
is not correct. Dr. Goff determined that McKeller was “functionally literate.” (R. 700).
DONE, this the 14th day of August, 2015.
JOHN E. OTT
Chief 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?