Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wiber v. Colvin

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

September 25, 2014

CYNTHIA A. WIBER, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Social Security Commissioner, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BERT W. MILLING, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which denied claims for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter SSI ) (Docs. 1, 12). The parties filed written consent and this action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 ( see Doc. 18). Oral argument was waived in this action (Doc. 17). Upon consideration of the administrative record and the memoranda of the parties, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this action be DISMISSED.

This Court is not free to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983), which must be supported by substantial evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). The substantial evidence test requires "that the decision under review be supported by evidence sufficient to justify a reasoning mind in accepting it; it is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance." Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 918 (11th Cir. 1984), quoting Jones v. Schweiker, 551 F.Supp. 205 (D. Md. 1982).

At the time of the most recent administrative hearing, Wiber was fifty-five years old, had acquired some college education (Tr. 38-29), and had previous work experience as an automobile rental clerk, hospital admitting clerk, title clerk, typist, and hotel clerk (Tr. 52-53). In claiming benefits, Plaintiff alleges disability due to major depression and bipolar disorder (Doc. 12 Fact Sheet).

The Plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance and SSI on December 23, 2009 (Tr. 106-07).[1] Benefits were denied following a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who determined that Wiber was capable of performing some of her past relevant work (Tr. 111-23). The Appeals Council, however, remanded the action back to the ALJ for consideration (Tr. 130-31). Following a new evidentiary hearing, the ALJ held that although she could not perform any of her past relevant work, Wiber was capable of performing specified jobs (Tr. 18-28). Plaintiff requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 14) by the Appeals Council, but it was denied (Tr. 1-5).

Plaintiff claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Wiber alleges the single claim that the ALJ did not properly explain her rejection of Plaintiff's testimony (Doc. 12). Defendant has responded to-and denies-this claim (Doc. 13).

In bringing this action, Wiber asserts that the ALJ did not properly explain the rejection of her testimony. In arguing her claim, Plaintiff references a single page in the 489-page transcript as support for her assertions of "blurred vision and clenched teeth" (Doc. 12, p. 3; see also Tr. 485). There is a further assertion of "the up-and-down nature of Plaintiff's mental impairments, showing that Plaintiff's memory, insight, and judgment fluctuated" (Doc. 12, p. 3); no transcript citation was given.

The medical record dated February 28, 2012, from the one day that Plaintiff cites as evidence, shows that she appeared for a scheduled visit and complained of heart burn, blurred vision, clinching her teeth a lot, and feeling jittery (Tr. 485). Wiber further reported that her mood was stable and denied mood swings, depression, suicidal and homicidal ideation, anxiety, or paranoia; memory was unimpaired ( id. ). The RN noted that Plaintiff was engaging in normal, cooperative behavior and was in a normal mood with an affect appropriate to the situation ( id. ). Wiber's thoughts were logical and coherent, with no concentration impairment noted; she was not anxious (Tr. 486). No change in medications was made (Tr. 486). This is the sum total of the evidence to which Plaintiff points to support her claim.

The Court notes that the ALJ is required to "state specifically the weight accorded to each item of evidence and why he reached that decision." Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981). Furthermore, social security regulations provide the following instruction:

It is not sufficient for the adjudicator to make a single, conclusory statement that "the individual's allegations have been considered" or that "the allegations are (or are not) credible." It is also not enough for the adjudicator simply to recite the factors that are described in the regulations for evaluating symptoms. The determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the individual's statements and the reasons for that weight.

SSR 96-7p (Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements).

In her decision, the ALJ made the following finding:

After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the claimant's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment.

(Tr. 23). Wiber acknowledges this conclusion, but asserts that it falls short of what is required (Doc. 12, p. 3). Therefore, the Court will point out other findings that support the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.