United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRADLEY MURRAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Danita Coleman brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review
of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“the Commissioner”) denying her claim for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), based on
disability. (Doc. 1). The parties have consented to the
exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for all proceedings in this Court.
(Doc. 17 (“In accordance with the provisions of 28
U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case
consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any
and all proceedings in this case, . . . order the entry of a
final judgment, and conduct all post-judgment
proceedings.”)). See Doc. 19. Upon
consideration of the administrative record, Coleman’s
brief, and the Commissioner’s brief,  it is determined
that the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits
should be affirmed.
applied for SSI, based on disability, under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1381-1383d, on May 4, 2015. (Tr. 176). Her
application was denied at the initial level of administrative
review on August 4, 2015. (Tr. 80-84). On August 25, 2015,
Coleman requested a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ). (Tr. 85). After a hearing was held on June 28, 2017,
the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision finding that Coleman
was not under a disability from the date the application was
filed through the date of the decision, October 19, 2017.
(Tr. 12-29). Coleman appealed the ALJ’s decision to the
Appeals Council, which denied her request for review of the
ALJ’s decision on June 29, 2018. (Tr. 1-4). After
exhausting her administrative remedies, Coleman sought
judicial review in this Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c). (Doc. 1). The Commissioner
filed an answer and the social security transcript on October
18, 2018. (Docs. 11, 12). Both parties have filed briefs
setting forth their respective positions. (Docs. 14, 15). The
case is now ripe for decision.
CLAIMS ON APPEAL
alleges that the ALJ’s decision to deny her benefits is
in error for the following reasons:
1. The ALJ erred in relying on the opinions of two
consultative examiners whose examinations were remote in
2. The ALJ erred by not finding “Major Depressive
Disorder” to be a severe impairment.
(Doc. 14 at p. 1).
was born on May 2, 1966 and was 49 years old at the time she
filed her claim for benefits. (Tr. 196). Coleman initially
alleged disability due to psychosis schizophrenia, arthritis,
and depression, with an onset date of November 1, 2014. (Tr.
196, 205). Coleman graduated from high school in 1984 and did
not attend special education classes. (Tr. 37, 207). The only
employment she has had was as a cashier in a convenience
store in 1995-96. (Tr. 37, 191). At the hearing before the
ALJ, Coleman also testified that she has diabetes,
hypertension, and a cyst in her left wrist. (Tr. 52-53).
Coleman claims that she is unable to work due to both her
physical and mental conditions.
conducting a hearing on this matter, the ALJ made a
determination that Coleman had not been under a disability
during the relevant time period, and thus, was not entitled
to benefits. (Tr. 28). The ALJ findings set forth in her
October 24, 2017 decision that are relevant to the claims on
appeal are set forth below.