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