Alexander v. Astrue
Filing
19
Order entered that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiffs claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, be AFFIRMED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 9/20/2012. (mjn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JESSICA A. ALEXANDER,
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
vs.
*
*
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
*
Commissioner of Social Security, *
*
Defendant.
*
CIVIL ACTION 11-00442-B
ORDER
Plaintiff Jessica A. Alexander (“Plaintiff”) brings this
action
seeking
Commissioner
judicial
review
Social
Security
of
of
a
final
denying
her
decision
claim
of
for
the
child
insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 402, et seq., and
1381, et seq.
On June 20, 2012, the parties consented to have
the undersigned conduct any and all proceedings in this case.
(Doc. 16).
conduct
all
Thus, the action was referred to the undersigned to
proceedings
and
order
the
entry
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 18).
was
waived.
Upon
careful
consideration
of
the
of
judgment
in
Oral argument
administrative
record and the arguments and briefs of the parties, it is hereby
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED.
I.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed applications for child’s insurance benefits
and supplemental security income on March 20, 2006. (Tr. 200-6).
Plaintiff alleges that she has been disabled since January 1,
1991, because she is a “slow learner.”1
(Id. at 76, 224, 321).
Plaintiff’s applications were denied at the initial stage, and
she
he
filed
Administrative
administrative
a
Law
timely
Judge
hearing
was
Request
(“ALJ”).
held
for
Hearing
(Id.
before
ALJ
at
before
an
91-112).
An
Ronald
Reeves
on
October 12, 2010, which was attended by Plaintiff, her attorney,
and vocational expert, Gail Jarrell.
(Id. at 37-56).2
ALJ
Reeves held a supplemental hearing on January 11, 2011, which
was attended by Plaintiff, her attorney, and vocational expert,
James Miller.
(Id. at 57-79).
On March 7, 2011, the ALJ issued
an unfavorable decision finding that Plaintiff is not disabled.
(Id. at 9-30).
Plaintiff’s request for review was denied by the
Appeals Council on July 9, 2011.
(Id. at 1-7).
1
At the January 11, 2011, hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel
amended Plaintiff’s alleged onset date to February 27, 2006.
(Id. at 76).
2
An administrative hearing was scheduled for March 20,
2008; however, Plaintiff did not appear. (Id. at 33-36). As a
result, the ALJ dismissed Plaintiff’s request for hearing. (Id.
at 84-85). Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Appeals Council,
who reversed the dismissal, and remanded the case so that
hearing could be held before an ALJ. (Id. at 86-88, 103).
2
The parties agree that this case is now ripe for judicial
review and is properly before this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).
II.
Issue on Appeal
Whether the ALJ erred in giving substantial
weight
to
the
opinions
of
non-examining
psychologists while according little weight to
the opinions contained in the medical source
statement completed by consultative examiner
Lucile Williams, Psy.D.
III. Factual Background
Plaintiff was born on October 29, 1986, and was twenty-four
(23)
years
of
administrative
age
at
hearing.
the
time
(Tr.
of
80-81,
the
October
12,
2010
126,
157).
Plaintiff
received a certificate, as opposed to a diploma, upon completion
of the 12th grade because she was not able to pass the graduation
exam after multiple attempts.
Plaintiff has no past relevant
work
she
although
in
the
past,
attempted,
but
was
not
successful, working at a car wash and in a restaurant as a
cafeteria attendant.
(Id. at 72, 223-29).
At the October 12, 2010 hearing, Plaintiff testified that
she was in special education classes, and that she suffers from
migraine headaches.
(Id. at 43-47).
Plaintiff also testified
that she has been receiving vocational rehabilitation, and while
they have not yet secured a job for her, they did assist her in
obtaining her driver’s license.
3
(Id. at 50).
According to
Plaintiff, she drives to go shopping, and to pick her mother up
from work.
(Id. at 50-51).
At the January 11, 2011 hearing, Plaintiff confirmed that
she received a certificate rather than a high school diploma,
and that her prior attempts at work were of limited duration and
were not successful.
(Id. at 66-69).
Plaintiff also testified
that she has been working with Goodwill/Easter Seals to try to
secure a position. (Id. at 68).
According to Plaintiff, she has
problems reading and writing, and she suffers from migraines and
back/knee pain which she attributes to her flat feet.
71).
(Id. at
Plaintiff testified that she has a young child, for whom
she cares, and that she also performs some household chores and
helps to care for other children at the home.
IV.
(Id. at 69-70)
Analysis
A.
Standard Of Review
In reviewing claims brought under the Act, this Court’s
role
is
a
determining
limited
1)
one.
whether
The
the
Court’s
decision
review
of
the
is
limited
to
Secretary
is
supported by substantial evidence and 2) whether the correct
legal standards were applied.
1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990).3
Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d
A court
3
may not decide the facts
This Court’s review of the Commissioner’s application of
legal principles is plenary. Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999
(11th Cir. 1987).
4
anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that
of the Commissioner.
Cir.
1986).
The
Sewell v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 1065, 1067 (11th
Commissioner’s
findings
of
fact
affirmed if they are based upon substantial evidence.
must
be
Brown v.
Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1233, 1235 (11th Cir. 1991); Bloodsworth v.
Heckler,
703
F.2d
1233,
1239
(11th
Cir.
1983)
(holding
substantial evidence is defined as “more than a scintilla but
less
than
a
preponderance”
and
consists
of
“such
relevant
evidence as a reasonable
person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion[]”).
In determining whether substantial
evidence exists, a court must view the record as a whole, taking
into account evidence favorable, as well as unfavorable, to the
Commissioner’s decision.
Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131
(11th Cir. 1986); Short v. Apfel, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10163
(S.D. Ala. 1999).
B.
Discussion
An individual who applies for Social Security disability
benefits must prove his disability.
416.912.
substantial
20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1512,
Disability is defined as the “inability to do any
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 twelve months.”
42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 404.1505(a), 416.905(a).
5
The Social
Security regulations provide a five-step sequential evaluation
process for determining if a claimant has proven her disability.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.4
In the case sub judice, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff
has not engaged in substantial gainful activity and that she has
the severe impairment of borderline intellectual functioning.
(Tr.
14-5).
The
ALJ
found
that
Plaintiff
does
not
have
an
impairment that meets or medically equals any of the listings
4
The claimant must first prove that he or she has not
engaged in substantial gainful activity.
The second step
requires the claimant to prove that he or she has a severe
impairment or combination of impairments.
If, at the third
step, the claimant proves that the impairment or combination of
impairments meets or equals a listed impairment, then the
claimant is automatically found disabled regardless of age,
education, or work experience.
If the claimant cannot prevail
at the third step, he or she must proceed to the fourth step
where the claimant must prove an inability to perform their past
relevant work.
Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001, 1005 (11th Cir.
1986). In evaluating whether the claimant has met this burden,
the examiner must consider the following four factors: (1)
objective medical facts and clinical findings; (2) diagnoses of
examining physicians; (3) evidence of pain; (4) the claimant’s
age, education and work history. Id. at 1005. Once a claimant
meets this burden, it becomes the Commissioner’s burden to prove
at the fifth step that the claimant is capable of engaging in
another kind of substantial gainful employment which exists in
significant
numbers
in
the
national
economy,
given
the
claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and
work history. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834 (11th Cir. 1985).
If the Commissioner can demonstrate that there are such jobs the
claimant can perform, the claimant must prove inability to
perform those jobs in order to be found disabled.
Jones v.
Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). See also Hale v.
Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987) (citing Francis v.
Heckler, 749 F.2d 1562, 1564 (11th Cir. 1985)).
6
contained in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Regulations
No. 4.
(Id. at 16).
The
ALJ
concluded
that
Plaintiff
retains
the
residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a full range of work at
all exertional levels but that she is moderately limited in her
ability to maintain concentration, persistence, or pace, and is
mildly limited in her ability to perform activities of daily
living and in social functioning.
(Id. at 19).
The ALJ found that Plaintiff has no past relevant work, and
relying on the testimony of the VE, the ALJ concluded that,
considering Plaintiff’s RFC and vocational factors, such as age,
education
other
and
jobs
economy
work
experience,
existing
such
as
in
Plaintiff
significant
kitchen
helper,
is
numbers
able
in
to
the
perform
national
cleaner/housekeeper,
and
production assembler. (Id. at 24-25). The ALJ thus concluded
that Plaintiff is not disabled.
1. Educational Records
The record includes various educational records. At age 13,
Plaintiff was referred to Patricia B. Smith, M.Ed, for special
education reevaluation by Pillans Middle School officials.
at 275-82).
(KAIT)
was
(Id.
A Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test
administered
to
Plaintiff
on
August
2,
2000.
Plaintiff received a crystallized scale IQ score (which measures
acquired concepts and depends on schooling and acculturation for
7
success)
of
69,
a
ability
to
solve
fluid
new
scale
IQ
problems)
score
86,
and
measures
the
a
composite
(Id. at 276, 278).
intelligence scale score of 76.
of
(which
Ms. Smith
noted that Plaintiff was initially tested on July 18, 19965, and
was
subsequently
classes.
(Id.
at
placed
in
Specific
277).
Ms.
Smith
Learning
opined
Disabilities
that
Plaintiff’s
composite intelligence IQ is in the fifth percentile and well
below average.
Plaintiff
(Id. at 288).
was
also
administered
the
Devereux
Behavior
Rating Scale–School Form (DBRS-SF), which measures the extent of
behaviors typical of children and adolescents with moderate to
severe emotion disturbance. Plaintiff was rated as “normal” in
all areas.
(Id. at 280-81).
Ms. Smith observed that there was
a significant discrepancy between Plaintiff’s overall ability
level and achievement in the area of written expression and that
she was performing commensurately with her overall ability level
in all other areas assessed.
that
special
months.
education
(Id. at 281).
reevaluation
occur
She recommended
within
thirty-six
(Id. at 282).
5
Plaintiff’s
earlier
tests
include
the
Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd edition (WISC-III), wherein
she received a verbal IQ score of 62, a performance IQ score of
78, and a full scale IQ score of 68. On the Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children (K-ABC), Plaintiff scored 91 in sequential
processing, 85 in simultaneous processing, and 86 on mental
processing composite. (Tr. 277).
8
The school records reflect that after multiple attempts,
Plaintiff failed all parts of the high school graduation exam,
except for Science. Thus, upon completion of high school, she
received a certificate rather than a diploma.
(Id. at 270-73).
2. Lay Statements
The record contains a letter dated August 31, 2006, and
written
by
James
Flora,
M.A.,
L.P.C.,
Independent Living Center of Mobile.
letter,
Mr.
Flora
advises
that
who
is
with
(Id. at 247).
Plaintiff
was
the
In the
provided
an
independent living plan at intake on August 29, 2006, and stated
that her stated goal was to obtain Social Security benefits to
increase her income. (Id.).
According to Mr. Flora, Plaintiff’s
mother provided information regarding Plaintiff’s difficulties
in
learning,
reading
and
comprehension,
counting
money,
and
keeping pace in a work setting, as well as Plaintiff’s problem
with migraine headaches and her emotional issues.
(Id. at 247-
9).
3. Medical Evidence
At the request of the Agency, Medical consultant Ellen N.
Eno, Ph.D. (hereinafter “Dr. Eno”), reviewed Plaintiff’s file,
and
completed
2006.
a
Psychiatric
(Id. at 309).
Review
Technique
dated
July
10,
Dr. Eno diagnosed Plaintiff with specific
learning disability, and
opined that Plaintiff is moderately
limited in maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace and
9
is
mildly
limited
in
activities
maintaining social functioning.
opined
that
Plaintiff
decompensation.
of
daily
living
and
(Id. at 310, 319-21).
does
not
suffer
any
episodes
in
She
of
(Id. at 319).
In a Mental RFC Assessment completed on the same day, Dr.
Eno opined that Plaintiff is moderately limited in understanding
and
remembering
detailed
instructions,
carrying
out
detailed
instructions, and maintaining attention and concentration for
extended
periods.
(Id.
at
323).
She
further
opined
that
Plaintiff is not significantly limited in remembering locations
and
work-like
short
and
procedures,
simple
understanding
instructions,
and
carrying
remembering
out
very
short
very
and
simple instructions, performing activities within a schedule,
maintaining
customary
regular
tolerances,
interacting
attendance,
making
appropriately
instructions
and
supervisors,
getting
simple
with
responding
along
and
the
being
work-related
general
appropriately
with
punctual
public,
to
coworkers
or
with
decisions,
accepting
criticism
peers
from
without
distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes, maintaining
socially appropriate behavior and responding appropriately to
changes in the work setting.
(Id. at 323-25).
The record also contains treatment notes from USA Family
Practice covering the period March 1, 2007 through November 13,
10
2008.
Plaintiff was treated for problems with migraines and for
routine gynecological matters.
Medical
consultant
(Id. at 327-36).
Linda
Duke,
Ph.D.
(hereinafter
“Dr.
Duke”), reviewed Plaintiff’s file at the request of the Agency.
(Id.
at
337-50).
Psychiatric
On
Review
July
22,
Technique
2009,
and
specific learning disability.
Dr.
Duke
diagnosed
(Id. at 338).
completed
Plaintiff
a
with
Dr. Duke opined
that Plaintiff is mildly limited in maintaining concentration,
persistence, and pace, in activities of daily living and in
maintaining social functioning.
Plaintiff
has
not
(Id. at 347).
experienced
episodes
She opined that
of
decompensation.
Plaintiff
underwent
(Id.).
At
the
request
of
the
Agency,
a
physical examination by Dr. Henrietta Kovacs on August 28, 2009.
(Id. at 351-56).
Dr. Kovacs’ notes reflect that Plaintiff’s
chief complaint was
mother was the
her “learning ability” and that Plaintiff’s
primary source of information.
examination of Plaintiff was essentially normal.
The physical
Dr. Kovacs
diagnosed Plaintiff with learning disability, the exact nature
of which is unknown, obesity, flat feet, history of intermittent
low back pain, and a history of migraines.
The
record
also
contains
treatment
(Id. at 353).
notes
from
Franklin
Primary Health dated February 5, 2010 through April 8, 2010. The
11
records
reflect
that
migraine headaches.
Plaintiff
was
provided
medication
for
(Id. at 395-401).
Jennifer Adams, Ph.D. (hereinafter “Dr. Adams”), conducted
a psychological evaluation of Plaintiff on September 1, 2010.
(Id. at 411).
and
her
affect
On exam, Plaintiff’s mood was mildly dysphoric,
was
flat.
(Id.).
She
was
not
conversant
but
answered questions adequately. (Id.). Plaintiff was administered
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th edition (WAIS-IV).
She obtained a Full Scale IQ of 77, which places her in the
borderline range of intellectual functioning.
(Id. at 412).
Her areas of weakness were noted as verbal comprehension, which
is in the mildly mentally retarded range.
(Id.).
Her area of
strength was in processing speed, which was at the high end of
the average range.
(Id.).
Dr. Adams opined that Plaintiff’s
demeanor suggested that she was not putting forth good effort,
but
her
high
processing
speed
score
indicated
good
effort.
(Id.).
Dr. Adams diagnosed borderline IQ and assigned a GAF score
of 65.6
(Id. at 413).
She opined that Plaintiff will have
6
The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a numeric
scale (0 through 100) used by mental health clinicians that
measures a patient’s overall level of psychological, social, and
occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum. A GAF
score of 41-50 indicates serious symptoms indicative of
antisocial behavior (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional
rituals, frequent shoplifting) or serious social dysfunction
(Continued)
12
difficulty in jobs requiring reading or other verbal skills but
that Plaintiff should be able to benefit from hands-on training
opportunities.
Lucile
T.
(Id. at 413).
Williams,
Psy.D
(hereinafter
“Dr.
Williams”)
examined Plaintiff at the request of the Agency on September 28,
2010.
(Id. at 404-10).
Plaintiff and her mother reported that
Plaintiff is unable to work due to migraines, pain in her left
knee and back, and pain in her foot due to a lack of an arch,
and that she is a “slow learner”.
(Id. at 405).
Plaintiff’s
mother also indicated that Plaintiff requires close supervision
in completing tasks and that she is easily frustrated when she
is unable to perform a task.
On
exam,
Plaintiff
purpose but not place.
(Id.).
was
(Id.).
oriented
to
person,
time,
and
Plaintiff was unable to subtract
serial twos from 10 but successfully counted backward from 20 to
1 and spelled the word “world” forward and backward.
(Id.).
(e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job). A GAF score of 51-60
suggests moderate symptoms (e.g., flat affect and circumstantial
speech, occasional panic attacks) or moderate difficulty in
social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., few friends,
conflicts with peers or co-workers). A GAF score of 61-70 is
indicative of mild symptoms (e.g., depressed mood and mild
insomnia) or some difficulty in social, occupational, or school
functioning (e.g., occasional truancy, or theft within the
household), but generally functioning pretty well, has some
meaningful interpersonal relationships. See http://www.gafscore.
com/. (Last visited June 10, 2012).
13
When her immediate memory was tested, Plaintiff was able to
recall 4 digits forward and 2 digits backward and could recall 3
of the 3 words immediately and none of the 3 words after five
minutes.
(Id.).
Plaintiff
was
capital
of
Regarding her general fund of information,
unable
Alabama,
to
or
name
the
the
U.S.
governor
of
but
President,
Alabama,
was
the
able
to
identify the number of months in a year and the colors of the
U.S. flag.
thoughts
(Id. at 406).
processes
associations
were
Dr. Williams noted that Plaintiff’s
grossly
tangential,
or
intact
and
that
loose
thinking
circumstantial
no
were
observed. (Id.). Plaintiff did not appear confused; conversation
was normal; and rate of speech was within normal limits.
(Id.).
No ideas of reference, phobias, obsessions or compulsions were
noted.
(Id.).
Dr. Williams administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale,
4th edition (WAIS-IV).
comprehension,
Plaintiff’s composite scores for verbal
perceptual
reasoning,
processing speed were 61, 81,
Williams
memory,
71, and 89, respectively.
received a full scale score of 71.
Dr.
working
diagnosed
and
She
(Id.).
Plaintiff
with
borderline
intellectual functioning, and opined that no change would be
expected.
(Id. at 407).
unable
manage
to
understood
her
instructions
She opined that Plaintiff would be
own
funds,
readily,
14
but
that
displayed
she
an
generally
appropriate
attitude,
maintained
good
effort
and
interest
and
seemed
motivated to do her best during the evaluation, was cooperative,
recognized
errors
comfortable.
and
appeared
socially
confident
and
(Id. at 406-07).
In a medical source statement dated October 6, 2010, Dr.
Williams
opined
remember,
and
that
carry
Plaintiff’s
out
ability
instructions
was
to
understand,
affected
by
her
impairments and that she is moderately limited in her ability to
understand and remember simple instructions, carry out simple
instructions,
decisions.
markedly
and
to
make
(Id. at 408).
limited
in
her
judgments
on
simple
work-related
She further opined that Plaintiff is
ability
to
understand
and
remember
complex instructions, carry out complex instructions and make
judgments
on
complex
work
related
decisions.
(Id.).
Dr.
Williams further opined that Plaintiff is markedly limited in
her
ability
to
interact
appropriately
with
supervisors,
co-
workers, and the public, as well as respond to changes in a
routine work setting.
4.
In
giving
(Id. at 409).
Whether the ALJ erred in giving substantial
weight
to
the
opinions
of
non-examining
psychologists while according little weight to
the opinions contained in the medical source
statement completed by consultative examiner
Lucile Williams, Psy.D.
her
brief,
significant
Plaintiff
weight
asserts
to
15
the
that
the
opinions
ALJ
of
erred
in
Agency
psychologists, Dr. Eno and Dr. Duke, and according little weight
to the opinions expressed by consulting examiner, Dr. Williams.
According to Plaintiff, Dr. Williams was the only doctor who
examined
her
and
who
considered
the
totality
of
all
the
evidence; thus, her opinion is entitled to greater weight. (Doc.
12).
In
opposition,
properly
evaluated
the
the
Commissioner
medical
argues
opinion
that
evidence,
opinions from Drs. Eno, Duke, Adams, and Williams.
the
ALJ
including
According to
the Commissioner, the ALJ noted that his mental RFC assessment
was
supported
by
and
consistent
with
Dr.
Williams’
clinical
findings and observations, and that the opinions contained in
the medical source statement completed by Dr. Williams were not
consistent
with
her
own
clinical
findings
and
observations.
(Doc. 13).
The ALJ is responsible for determining a claimant’s RFC by
considering
all
relevant
medical
and
other
evidence.
See
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F. 3d 1232, 1238-39 (llth Cir. 2004).
The ALJ must state with particularity the weight given different
medical
opinions
and
the
reasons
for
doing
Bowen, 825 F. 2d 278, 279 (llth Cir. 1987).
so.
Sharfarz
v.
The ALJ may reject
any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding.
Id.
"[C]hoosing
peculiarly
suited
between
to
conflicting
the
fact
16
evidence
finder
is
[that
a
task
is,
the
Commissioner],
and
[the
court]
will
not
disturb
such
a
determination on appeal.” Landry v. Heckler, 782 F. 2d 1551,
1554 (llth Cir. 1986).
As
noted,
the
ALJ
concluded
Plaintiff
has
the
severe
impairment of borderline intellectual functioning but determined
that she is not disabled.
considered
the
medical
opinions
Williams,
and
Dr.
Duke.
clinical
findings
were
determination
and
the
In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ
Dr.
of
Williams’
consistent
other
Dr.
medical
Adams,
Dr.
with
evidence
the
in
Dr.
notes
examination
Eno,
and
ALJ’s
the
RFC
record.
However, the opinions contained in Dr. Williams’ medical source
were was not consistent with her own examination notes nor the
other medical evidence in the record.
Thus, the ALJ gave little
weight to the opinions contained in Dr. Williams’ medical source
statement and observed as follows:
A medical source statement of the claimant’s
mental
capacity
to
function
was
also
provided by Dr. Williams. The claimant was
assessed
with
moderate
limitations
in
understanding, remembering, and carrying out
simple instructions, and marked limitations
with complex instructions and decisions.
However, the claimant was also found to have
marked limitations in her interactions with
the public, supervisors, and coworkers, as
well
as
in
her
ability
to
respond
appropriately to usual work situations.
There were no medical signs, laboratory
findings, or clinical evidence noted in
support of this degree of limitations noted.
This assessment is also inconsistent with
the findings contained in the consultative
17
examination performed by Dr. Williams, as
well as the claimant’s school records,
vocational rehabilitation records, and the
consultative
examination.
The
behavioral
observations fail to reflect evidence, which
support
the
marked
limitations
in
functioning assessed (Exhibit 12F). While
the evidence provided in the examination
report was found to be persuasive, the
cursory medical source statement provided by
Dr. Williams lacked objective support and is
inconsistent with the examination report
provided by Dr. Williams. Therefore, the
medical source statement was afforded little
weight as inconsistent with the full record.
(Tr. 22).
Here, it is clear that the ALJ did not reject all of Dr.
Williams’ opinions.
Rather, he found Dr. Williams’ examination
report to be consistent with the other record evidence.
the
extreme
limitations
contained
in
Dr.
Williams’
It was
medical
source statement that the ALJ accorded little weight because
they were inconsistent with Dr. Williams’ own medical findings
and the record as a whole, and they were not supported by any
objective
examining
thoughts
medical
evidence
Plaintiff,
processes
Dr.
were
observed
that
normal
was
limits.
generally
or
Plaintiff
normal;
Further,
understood
record.
Williams
tangential,
conversation
the
grossly
associations,
and
in
and
Dr.
Specifically,
noted
intact
that
and
circumstantial
did
not
her
rate
Williams
instructions
18
appear
of
readily,
Plaintiff’s
that
no
loose
thinking
were
confused;
speech
observed
upon
was
that
her
within
Plaintiff
displayed
an
appropriate attitude, maintained good effort and interest, was
cooperative, recognized errors and appeared socially confident
and
comfortable.
someone
with
These
marked
findings
are
limitations
in
wholly
her
inconsistent
ability
to
with
interact
appropriately with supervisors, coworkers, and the public, or
respond to changes in a routine work setting.
The ALJ assigned great evidentiary weight to the findings
and
opinions
Plaintiff.
medical
Dr.
Plaintiff
was
adequately.
measured
of
as
Adams
not
consultant
noted
that
conversant
but
Dr.
Adams,
who
during
the
she
answered
examined
examination,
questions
Dr. Adams noted that Plaintiff’s full Scale IQ was
77,
placing
her
in
the
borderline
range
of
intellectual functioning, and opined that Plaintiff would have
difficulty in jobs requiring reading or verbal skills; she also
opined that Plaintiff should be able to benefit from hands-on
training opportunities.
In addition, Dr. Eno and Dr. Duke also
opined, after a review of Plaintiff’s file, that she is mildly
limited
in
maintaining
social
functioning.
It
is
also
noteworthy that the record is devoid of any testimony or any
other evidence indicating that Plaintiff has marked restrictions
in her social functioning.
Although the record reflects that
Plaintiff has borderline intellectual functioning and Plaintiff
testified that she had two unsuccessful attempts at work, she
does not allege, and the record does not reflect that Plaintiff
19
had any problems relating to people.
evidence,
including
Dr.
Williams’
In view of the record
written
evaluation
dated
September 28, 2010, the ALJ did not err in according little
weight to the extreme limitations contained in Dr. Williams’
medical source statement dated October 10, 2010.
the
undersigned
finds
that
the
ALJ’s
Accordingly,
determination
that
Plaintiff is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence.
V.
Conclusion
For
the
reasons
set
forth
above,
and
upon
careful
consideration of the administrative record and memoranda of the
parties,
it
is
hereby
ORDERED
that
the
decision
of
the
Commissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiff’s claim for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income,
be AFFIRMED.
DONE this 20th day of September, 2012.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
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?