Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Fields v. Colvin

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

January 21, 2015

ELLA W. FIELDS, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Social Security Commissioner, Defendant.


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, 13). 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 (Doc. 19). 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 administrative hearing, Fields was forty-eight years old, had a high school education[1] (Tr. 189), and had previous work experience as an internal combustion engine assembler helper, front desk receptionist, and sales representative ( see Tr. 29). In claiming benefits, Plaintiff alleges disability due to cervical disc disease with cervicalgia, epicondylitis, major depressive disorder, pain disorder, and personality disorder (Tr. 21; see also Doc. 13 Fact Sheet).

The Plaintiff filed protective applications for disability benefits and SSI on April 5, 2011 (Tr. 116-28; see also Tr. 18). Benefits were denied following a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who determined that although Fields was unable to perform her past relevant work, she was capable of performing specified light exertion jobs (Tr. 18-31). Plaintiff requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 9-12) by the Appeals Council, but it was denied (Tr. 1-5).

In bringing this action, Fields claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) The ALJ did not properly consider the evidence rendered by a consultative Psychologist; and (2) the ALJ did not properly develop the record (Doc. 13). Defendant has responded to-and denies-these claims (Doc. 14). The relevant evidence of record follows.[2]

On July 13, 2011, Psychologist Nina E. Tocci examined Fields for a psychological evaluation at the request of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter SSA ) (Tr. 423-47). When Tocci asked Plaintiff her reason for seeking disability, she responded by stating: "My arms, wrist, neck, back [sic] my whole body just aches;'" she denied having ever received treatment for mental health issues (Tr. 423). The Psychologist noted uncontrollable crying at times; affect was appropriate while her mood was not good. Plaintiff was oriented in four spheres, had focused attention and concentration, and demonstrated a fair fund of information and comprehension; thought content was logical and organized. Fields had some insight into her behavior and evinced fair social judgment; Tocci indicated that she was functioning within the average range of intellectual ability. The Psychologist's impression was Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent Pain Disorder, and Personality Disorder, NOS; she indicated that the prognosis was poor. In summarizing her findings, Tocci stated as follows:

Currently she experiences chronic pain, crying spells, feelings of worthlessness, isolation, cognitive clouding, impaired appetite and sleep. She would benefit from intensive psychotherapy with a psychologist. With appropriate and intensive therapy she could also benefit from referral to Adult Vocational Rehabilitation for career retraining and employment support. She should be re-evaluated after a year of psychotherapy to determine her emotional stability and work suitability. Currently, she would have difficulty remembering, learning, performing, and completing tasks to specification in a timely manner.

(Tr. 426). On July 25, 2011, Joanna Koulianos, a non-examining State Psychologist reviewed the record medical evidence and completed a Psychiatric Review Technique form in which she found that Fields had a Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Pain Disorder, and a Personality Disorder, NOS (Tr. 428-41). The Psychologist determined that Plaintiff suffered mild restriction of activities of daily living, moderate difficulties in maintaining social functioning, and moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace. Psychologist Koulianos also completed a mental residual functional capacity assessment in which she indicated that Fields was moderately limited in her ability to do the following: understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions; maintain attention and concentration for extended periods; interact appropriately with the general public; accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors; and respond appropriately to changes in the work setting (Tr. 442-45). The Psychologist went on to indicate that Fields could understand, remember, and carry out short, simple instructions and could concentrate for two-hour periods (Tr. 444).

This concludes the relevant evidence of record.

In bringing this action, Fields first claims that the ALJ did not properly consider the evidence rendered by a consultative Psychologist; Plaintiff references the exam by Psychologist Tocci (Doc 13, pp. 4-6). The Court notes that "although the opinion of an examining physician is generally entitled to more weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician, the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion." Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981);[3] see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (2014). The Court further 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). 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 his determination, the ALJ summarized all of the medical evidence before stating the value he gave that evidence (Tr. 20-29). He discounted Fields's testimony, finding that she was not a credible witness (Tr. 25, 28-29), a finding that goes unchallenged in this action. The ALJ gave ...

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.