Who Was The Real Sexual Predator In The USCGA Class of 2006?

Who Was The Real Sexual Predator In The USCGA Class of 2006? Was it Webster Smith or Shelly Roddenbush? Who fraternized with enlisted members? Who had consensual sex with an enlisted member from another branch of the military and later lied about it? Whose conduct was more to the prejudice of good order and discipline? http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-Conviction/dp/1460978021

1st Lieutenant Kelly Flinn faced a court-martial on May 20, 1997 for military charges of adultery with a civilian soccer coach at Minot Air Force Base who was married to a female enlisted subordinate; conduct unbecoming an officer; disobeying a lawful order (in writing, to stay away from the married man), and for making a false official statement. She attended the Air Force Academy and bomber training, becoming the first woman B-52 pilot in the USAF. Flinn's case, due to her high visibility in Air Force recruitment advertisements, as well as the number of her accomplishments during her four years of active-duty service, drew national attention, eventually creating a media circus culminating when the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Ronald Fogleman made comments on her case at a congressional hearing. Following General Fogleman's comments, Lieutenant Flinn was allowed to resign from the Air Force by Secretary of the Air Force Dr. Sheila E. Widnall with a general discharge instead of facing a court-martial.

Flinn was the first female B-52 pilot in the USAF.Flinn was discharged from the U.S. Air Force in 1997 after being charged with making a false statement, adultery, and disobeying orders. Flinn's trouble with the Air Force received widespread media attention at the time and was discussed in a U.S. Senate hearing on May 22, 1997.

She later wrote a book recounting her experiences entitled Proud to Be: My Life, The Air Force, The Controversy. It has always been a consistent policy of the Air Force to prohibit and discourage relationships between officers and enlisted. While the media insists that she is being "unfairly singled out for adultery" (which is also prohibited under the UCMJ) in fact, what Lt. Flinn is charged with is disobeying a direct and legal order, and lying. It just happens that what she was lying about was her adultery. She admits guilt to both charges. She was deposed by a properly convened investigative authority and raising her hand, she swore to "facts" which later proved to be knowingly untrue. She got caught (metaphorically and actually) with her pants down. When an officer is involved in a social relationship (sexual or not) with enlisted people, the Air Force (and all the other services ) always considers a breech of discipline and a potential compromise of authority to be highly likely. Lt. Flinn was well educated in this philosophy during her four years at the Air Force Academy. In spite of this, she chose to have sexual relations with an enlisted man stationed at Minot. Then, during the same year, she chose to have an extended sexual relationship with a civilian who was married to an enlisted female stationed at Minot. When ordered to stop living with the married man, she chose to defy that order and continue. Finally, questioned under oath, she lied about the fact that she had continued to see the man she was ordered to stay away from. If the gender roles were reversed, she (he) would have been court marshaled, punished and discharged (just as scores of men in all the services have) without so much as a blurb in the local Minot newspaper. Media pundits expressed pious outrage at the Army drill sergeant affair where senior enlisted men had taken advantage of their authority and had relations with junior recruits. The Air Force considers Lt. Flinn (similarly) to be an officer who potentially and perhaps actually misused her authority. An acknowledged liar and person of low moral turpitude, she disobeyed orders and misled a properly authorized investigative officer. She lied under oath--a military felony---and incidentally, she admittedly engaged in prohibited fraternization which wreaks havoc to good order and discipline in a military unit. Now, as the Black army drill sergeant recently convicted for his misdeeds cried "discrimination," so does Lt. Flinn. That powerful defense always evokes the sympathy of the media, but clearly in her case, it is particularly disingenuous. In the eyes of the Air Force, Lt. Flinn is as bad a character as were the Army drill sergeants. In keeping with the new Army policy for female recruits, perhaps the Air Force should have all male enlisted move about the base in pairs, to avoid the potential of abuse from sexually predatory female officers. There is at least one enlisted married female at Minot who would concur with that. At commissioning, military officers are expected, and agree to observe a higher code of conduct than the general enlisted and civilian population. Certainly that does not always happen, but exemptions from those higher expectations, based on race or gender are not in the interest of anyone but a hypocrite. The media’s failure to acknowledge the parallels between the Army sex scandals and Lt. Flinn puts them squarely in that category. Flinn was the first female B-52 pilot in the USAF.Flinn was discharged from the U.S. Air Force in 1997 after being charged with making a false statement, adultery, and disobeying orders. Flinn's trouble with the Air Force received widespread media attention at the time and was discussed in a U.S. Senate hearing on May 22, 1997.

Social Security Judges Under Investigation

May 1st, 2012: An independent study of administrative law judges (ALJ) who work for the Social Security Administration is underway, with findings due out next year in 2013. The review is being conducted by the Administrative Conference of the United States. This government-policy think-tank is likely to issue new policy recommendations to judges on how to handle Social Security Disability cases. These policy changes could have an impact on attorneys and para-legals, who practice before the Social Security Bar. The Social Security Administration ordered the study. There have been reports of gross inconsistencies in rulings from judge to judge. Critics have pointed out that over 100 judges approve more than 85% of all cases that come before them, while one judge in Tennessee approves over 99% of the cases that he hears. Conversely, there is a judge in Texas who only approves 13 cases out of every 100. Another factor which has sparked this investigation is the gross disparity in the length of hearings, that is, the time a Social Security claimant actually spends in front of a judge. After waiting for an average of 2 years for their day in court, most claimants spend less than an hour in an actual hearing. Most cases last about an hour. Some judges were found to make snap decisions in just a few minutes. There are reports that some judges simply flip a coin to decide whether a claimant wins or loses. Since the judges do not even write their own decisions, some decision writers have complained that the judges' decision writing instructions consist of nothing more than a "smiley face' or a "frowning face" on a piece of paper. And the worst case of all are the reports of judges who decide over 200 cases a month without even bothering to hold a hearing. They simply "pay the cases" to get rid of them. This is called "paying down the backlog" in the language of the Social Security Office. The backlog of over 770,000 disability claimants could be a factor in the rapid decisions. (Read more at http://www.amazon.com/socialNsecurity-Confessions-Social-Security-Judge/dp/1449569757) For years attorneys have been known to forum shop. They search for Hearing Offices that have a high degree of reversals of cases on appeal; or, they search for judges known to be more likely to grant benefits.The Social Security Administration has halted the process of informing applicants of which judge will preside over their hearings. This practice will prevent SSD attorneys from “shopping” for a lenient judge. However, if judges become stricter in their approval standards, it could prompt more applicants to seek professional representation to increase their chances of being one of the 10,000,000 Americans who will receive their share of the $130,000,000,000 in SSD claims in 2013. This could help SSD attorneys and representatives increase their number of clients in the long run. The recommendations that result from the study are scheduled for release in November 2012. The new procedures will be non-binding, but are geared toward refining and leveling the approval process. http://www.amazon.com/socialNsecurity-Confessions-Social-Security-Judge/dp/1449569757

How To Win Your Disability Case And make The Government Pay For Your Attorney

THOMAS v. ASTRUE LAURA M. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. Before TYMKOVICH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge. ORDER AND JUDGMENT TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge. This appeal requires us to consider a magistrate judge’s discretion to deny attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. After a magistrate judge remanded Laura M. Thomas’s disability claim to the Commissioner of Social Security for further analysis, Ms. Thomas applied for attorney’s fees under the EAJA. The magistrate judge denied her application for fees, Ms. Thomas appealed, and we now affirm. Ms. Thomas originally applied for disability insurance benefits, claiming she was disabled on October 28, 2004, by deep vein thrombosis and obesity. Her case proceeded to a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), at which a medical expert testified that Ms. Thomas became disabled in May 2007. Without discussing this testimony, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Thomas did indeed become disabled on May 1, 2007, but her insured status had already expired on December 31, 2006. Consequently, the ALJ denied benefits, prompting Ms. Thomas to seek judicial review in the district court. Ms. Thomas argued for a remand on the ground (among others) that the ALJ improperly evaluated the medical expert’s opinion. She acknowledged that the expert’s opinion concerning her date of onset was predicated on evidence of neurological damage in her lower extremities discovered in 2007. But she argued that there was other evidence documenting neurological changes as early as February 2005, yet the ALJ did not explain why he credited the expert’s opinion over this other evidence. The magistrate judge agreed that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical expert’s opinion, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(ii) (requiring ALJ to evaluate opinion evidence under relevant factors and explain weight accorded to opinion), and he therefore remanded the case to the agency to allow the ALJ to explain the weight accorded to the expert’s opinion. Having succeeded in obtaining a remand, Ms. Thomas returned to the magistrate judge and requested $5,995.10 in attorney’s fees pursuant to § 2412(d). In her application, she argued that the remand order was a favorable final judgment and the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified. The Commissioner, for his part, opposed a fee award, asserting that the issues before the magistrate judge “involve[d] a genuine dispute, reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the matter, and the ALJ’s decision was justified `for the most part.’” The Commissioner explained that the ALJ’s decision was affirmed on all grounds except the medical expert’s opinion, which only required further discussion of the weight assigned; otherwise, the ALJ’s finding of May 1, 2007, as the date of onset was consistent with the expert’s opinion. Hence, the Commissioner maintained that his position was substantially justified and fees should therefore be denied. The magistrate judge agreed with the Commissioner and held that “[t]he government’s position . . . was not only substantially justified, any reasonable person would have viewed it as substantively correct, but technically defective.” We review the denial of an EAJA claim for abuse of discretion. The EAJA entitles a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees from the government “`unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.’” “The test for substantial justification in this circuit is one of reasonableness in law and fact.” In other words, “the government’s position must be justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person,” but it need not necessarily be correct. We agree that the government’s position was substantially justified. The dispositive issue for the magistrate judge was whether the ALJ properly evaluated the medical expert’s opinion. The ALJ cited substantial evidence demonstrating that Ms. Thomas’s condition had deteriorated until she was disabled in May 2007, but he did not discuss how (if at all) he weighed the medical expert’s opinion. Although the Commissioner defended the ALJ’s decision, he did so on substantially justifiable grounds, noting that the ALJ was not obligated to find that Ms. Thomas was disabled after her insured status expired. He also emphasized that the ALJ’s finding of disability in May 2007 was consistent with the expert’s opinion, which was itself substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision. These arguments were rejected by the magistrate judge, but that does not render the government’s position unreasonable. Rather, as the magistrate judge observed, “the record clearly supported the ALJ’s decision so long as the ALJ simply stated the weight he assigned to the medical expert’s opinion.” Indeed, the magistrate judge “fully anticipated that on remand the ALJ would promptly revise his decision to identify the weight he gave the medical expert without altering his ultimate conclusion that [Ms. Thomas] was not disabled prior to the onset date found by the ALJ.” These circumstances demonstrate that the magistrate judge acted within his discretion in denying attorney’s fees.Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Social Security Benefits Can Be Terminated If A Judge Determines There Has Been Medical Improvement

SIMONE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BARBARA A. SIMONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Barbara Simone appeals from the district court’s order which affirmed the Administrative Law Judge‘s (“ALJ”) termination of her disability insurance benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On appeal, Simone argues that: (1) substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s determination that Simone’s medical condition had substantially improved as of May 1, 2005; (2) substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s determination that the improvement in Simone’s medical condition was related to her ability to do work; and (3) the ALJ erred by failing to give greater weight to the opinion of Simone’s treating physician, Dr. Robert Bianco, regarding her ability to work. After thorough review, we affirm. We review a Social Security decision “to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Substantial evidence consists of “such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” The burden rests with the claimant to prove that she is disabled and entitled to Social Security benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a). An ALJ may terminate a claimant’s benefits upon finding that there has been medical improvement in the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments related to the claimant’s ability to work and the claimant is now able to engage in substantial gainful activity. 42 U.S.C. § 423(f)(1). To determine whether disability benefits should be terminated, the ALJ must conduct a multi-step evaluation process and determine: (1) Whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity; (2) If not gainfully employed, whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments which meets or equals a listing; (3) If impairments do not meet a listing, whether there has been medical improvement; (4) If there has been improvement, whether the improvement is related to the claimant’s ability to do work; (5) If there is improvement related to claimant’s ability to do work, whether an exception to medical improvement applies; (6) If medical improvement is related to the claimant’s ability to do work or if one of the first groups of exceptions to medical improvement applies, whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (7) If the claimant has a severe impairment, whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; (8) If the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, whether the claimant can perform other work.See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(f). First, we reject Simone’s claim that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s determination that Simone’s medical condition had substantially improved because the ALJ ignored evidence that she also continuously suffered from other severe cardiovascular conditions, specifically carotid artery disease. To determine if there has been medical improvement, the ALJ must compare the medical evidence supporting the most recent final decision holding that the claimant is disabled with new medical evidence. “Medical improvement” is defined as “any decrease in the medical severity of [the] impairment(s) which was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision that [the claimant was] disabled . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(b)(1); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(c)(1). Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that there had been substantial improvement in Simone’s medical condition as of May 1, 2005. As Simone’s medical records demonstrate, a February 23, 2005, echocardiogram showed that her cardiomyopathy had improved — showing an improved ejection fraction of approximately 50 percent, on the lower limit of normal — so that it no longer met the Medical Listing. Moreover, Simone’s treating cardiologist, Dr. Bianco, said in letters and treatment notes on several occasions between February 2002 and April 2005 that Simone’s cardiomyopathy was stable, she was doing well, and she was able to exercise, at one point walking up to one mile each day. Dr. John Bolla’s March and April 2005 notes and communications also support the ALJ’s finding of substantial medical improvement, as he reported that Simone exercised 30 minutes a day, 3 times a week; carotid artery sonography revealed mild stenosis of 30 percent bilateral internal carotid arteries, resulting in a diagnosis of “minor carotid artery disease”; she was doing very well, with no clinical signs of congestive heart failure; the most recent echocardiogram had demonstrated a normal ejection fraction of 50 percent; and the holter monitor had not demonstrated any significant abnormalities. Although March 13, 2000, arteriograms showed mild to moderate (less than 50 percent) narrowing of the internal carotid arteries, high grade stenosis (greater than 90 percent) at the origin of the external carotid arteries, and moderate stenosis (50 to 60 percent) at the origin of the left vertebral artery, other medical records between 2000 and May 1, 2005, demonstrated that Simone’s carotid artery disease was not a major focus of her medical treatment and that it perhaps even improved during this time period. Dr. Bianco’s medical notes included carotid artery disease in his assessment on April 25, 2001, but most of his later assessments did not include that diagnosis. Dr. Bianco also noted no symptoms of carotid artery disease, such as a carotid bruit, between April 25, 2001, and April 2005. Furthermore, as the ALJ noted, Simone’s February 25, 2005, Doppler sonography tests revealed mild (30 percent) bilateral internal carotid artery stenosis — which is a significant improvement over the March 2000 test results. And finally, the fact that, in 2008, Simone underwent two surgeries to treat her carotid artery disease is not relevant to whether her medical impairment had medically improved as of May 1, 2005, the date on which her disability ended.We are also unpersuaded by Simone’s claim that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s determination that the improvement in Simone’s medical condition was related to her ability to do work. If the ALJ determines that there has been medical improvement, then he must determine whether that improvement is related to the claimant’s ability to do work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(f)(4). The regulations provide that “[m]edical improvement is related to [the claimant's] ability to work if there has been a decrease in the severity . . . of the impairment(s) present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision and an increase in [the claimant's] capacity to do basic work activities . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(b)(3). The regulations provide specific instructions for how this determination will be made if the claimant’s previous disability determination was based on the fact that her impairment met or equaled the severity contemplating by the Listing of Impairments:If [the Social Security Administration's] most recent favorable decision was based on the fact that [the claimant's] impairment(s) at the time met or equaled the severity contemplated by the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 of this subpart, an assessment of [the claimant's] residual functional capacity would not have been made. If medical improvement has occurred and the severity of the prior impairment(s) no longer meets or equals the same listing section used to make [the] most recent favorable decision, [the Social Security Administration] will find that the medical improvement was related to [the claimant's] ability to work.. . . If there has been medical improvement to the degree that the requirement of the listing section is no longer met or equaled, then the medical improvement is related to [the claimant's] ability to work.20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(c)(3)(i). In this case, the ALJ properly determined that, because the February 2005 echocardiogram showed an improved ejection fraction of 50 percent, in combination with evidence from her other medical records, Simone no longer had an impairment or combination of impairments equal to the same listing that was met at the time of her last disability determination. Simone’s initial disability determination was based on her diagnosis for cardiomyopathy and the fact that the results of the November 2001 echocardiogram showed an ejection fraction of 15 percent. This diagnosis met the requirements for Medical Listing 4.02(B), which, among other factors, required a documented ejection fraction of 30 percent or less. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Medical Listing 4.02(B) (2002). Thus, no assessment of Simone’s residual functional capacity was made at the time of her initial disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(c)(3)(i). Because Simone no longer met or equaled the same listing that she met when she was previously found disabled, substantial evidence necessarily supports the ALJ’s finding that her medical improvement was related to her ability to do work. See id.Finally, we find no merit to Simone’s argument that the ALJ erred by failing to give greater weight to the opinion of Simone’s treating physician, Dr. Bianco, regarding her ability to work. “[T]he opinion of a treating physician is entitled to substantial weight unless good cause exists for not heeding the treating physician’s diagnosis.” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (providing that, generally, more weight is given to opinions from treating sources). However, we have found “good cause” to afford less weight to a treating physician’s opinion where the opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records or where the evidence supports a contrary finding. Furthermore, the ALJ “is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.” On this record, the ALJ did not err by discounting the Dr. Bianco’s opinions regarding Simone’s ability to work. As for Dr. Bianco’s residual functional capacity evaluation, Dr. Bianco provided no information about any clinical data or other objective medical evidence on which he based his opinion, only signing the form in the space provided for that information. Dr. Bianco’s response to Simone’s counsel’s letter requesting confirmation that the residual functional capacity evaluation was not contradicted by his treatment notes provided no additional support for his opinion. And, the December 29, 2005, and April 4, 2007, letters Dr. Bianco wrote “[t]o whom it may concern,” expressing his opinion that Simone was still disabled and unable to work, were also not supported by any medical evidence.Moreover, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Bianco’s opinions regarding Simone’s ability to work were contradicted by his treatment notes and other medical evidence. As discussed previously, the February 2005 echocardiogram demonstrated an improved ejection fraction of approximately 50 percent, on the lower limit of normal. In addition, Dr. Bianco’s own letters and treatment notes reported on several occasions between February 2002 and April 2005 that Simone’s cardiomyopathy was stable, she was doing well, she was able to walk up to one mile each day, and she stayed active caring for her mother. Further, Dr. Bolla’s notes and communications demonstrated that Simone exercised 30 minutes a day, 3 times a week, she was doing very well, with no clinical signs of congestive heart failure; the 2005 echocardiogram demonstrated a normal ejection fraction of 50 percent; and the holter monitor had not demonstrated any significant abnormalities. Lastly, the ALJ adequately set forth his reasons for discounting Dr. Bianco’s opinions regarding Simone’s ability to work, as he explained that he gave no weight to Dr. Bianco’s opinions because they were inconsistent with Bianco’s treatment notes and objective medical evidence. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.

If Your Treating MD Says You Are Disabled, The Judge Must Grant You Benefits

TALLEY v. ASTRUE BRENDA L. TALLEY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Brenda L. Talley appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying her claim for Disability Insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Act. For the following reasons, the decision of the Commissioner must be REVERSED and REMANDED. I. Background: Ms. Talley filed for DIB and SSI on May 15, 2008, claiming disability since June 23, 2007. Ms. Talley alleged that she was disabled as a result of diabetes, arthritis, anxiety, morbid obesity, malabsorption syndrome, agoraphobia, hypertension, supraventricular tachycardia, obsessive compulsive disorder, neuropathy, retinopathy, endometriosis, degenerative joint disease, chronic insomnia, and deep vein thrombosis. After denials initially and upon reconsideration, Ms. Talley requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ held a hearing on July 6, 2009, at which Ms. Talley appeared with her attorney and testified. The ALJ also heard testimony from a vocational expert. The ALJ issued a decision on November 4, 2009, finding that Ms. Talley was not disabled for purposes of the Act. On January 20, 2011, the Appeals Council denied her request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. At the time of the hearing before the ALJ, Ms. Talley was 47 years old and was living alone in a house next door to her mother and brother. She had previous work as a registered nurse. II. Decision of the Administrative Law Judge: The ALJ followed the required five-step sequence to determine: (1) whether the claimant was engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) met or equaled a listed impairment; (4) if not, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing any other jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(g); 416.920(a)-(g).The ALJ found that Ms. Talley had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged disability onset date but noted that she had received unemployment benefits into the first quarter of 2008, indicating she was available and willing to return to work during that period. The ALJ also found that Ms. Talley had the following severe impairments: diabetes mellitus, back disorder (degenerative arthritis), obesity, and mood disorder. According to the ALJ, Ms. Talley did not have an impairment or combination of impairments, however, that met or equaled an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1526, 416.926). The ALJ determined that Ms. Talley retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work except as follows: she could occasionally lift/carry ten pounds and frequently lift/carry less, stand/walk for two hours; occasionally climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop, and crouch. She had moderate restriction in her ability to maintain the activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence, and pace. She was moderately limited in her ability to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions; make judgments on simple work related decisions; interact appropriately with the public; and respond appropriately to usual work situation and routine work changes. She could perform work where interpersonal contact was incidental to the work performed, complexity of tasks is learned and performed by rote, with few variables, little judgment was required, and supervision was simple, direct, and concrete. The ALJ concluded that Ms. Talley could not perform her past relevant work as a registered nurse. (Tr. 58) Relying on the vocational expert’s responses to interrogatories, the ALJ concluded Ms. Talley could perform work as a production worker, credit authorizer, or interviewer and that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. III. Analysis:A. Standard of Review. In reviewing the Commissioner’s decision, this Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision. Substantial evidence is something less than a preponderance, but it must be, “sufficient for reasonable minds to find it adequate to support the decision.” In reviewing the record as a whole, the Court must consider both evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s decision and evidence that supports the decision; but, the decision cannot be reversed, “simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion.” B. Severe Impairments and Residual Functional CapacityMs. Talley complains that the ALJ erred by failing to find that her diabetic retinopathy, supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), peripheral neuropathy, and hip pain were severe impairments. She also complains that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.Ms. Talley had the burden of showing that her impairments were severe; however, this burden is not a great one. Rather, step two of the sequential evaluation process provides a de minimus screening device to dispose of groundless claims. An impairment is severe if the effect of the impairment on the claimant’s ability to perform basic work is more than slight or minimal. Basic work activities are the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs, such as hearing, standing, walking, sitting, lifting, handling, remembering simple instructions, using judgment, and dealing with changes in a routine work setting. 20 C.F.R. §404.1521. The Commissioner must resolve any doubt as to whether the required showing of severity has been made in favor of the claimant. SSR 85-28 at *4 (1985).Once it is determined that an individual has a severe impairment for purposes of step two, the combined effect of all impairments are considered in determining an individual’s residual functional capacity, regardless of whether the impairments are labeled severe or non-severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(e) and 416.945(e). In assessing residual functional capacity, the ALJ must give appropriate consideration to all of the claimant’s impairments, and base the assessment on competent medical evidence. Partee v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 860, 865 (8th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). An ALJ should consider the quality of the claimant’s daily activities and the ability to sustain activities, interests, and relate to others over a period of time. The frequency, appropriateness, and independence of the activities must also be considered. Boettcher, 652 F.3d at 866 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).1. Diabetic RetinopathyMs. Talley claims that the ALJ erred by failing to find that her diabetic retinopathy was a severe impairment. The ALJ noted that Ms. Talley had been referred for an evaluation of diabetic retinopathy and stated that her diabetes could be expected to cause vision changes. But he did not find her diabetic retinopathy to be a severe impairment; nor did he discuss Ms. Talley’s vision when assessing her residual functional capacity.The Commissioner does not dispute that Ms. Talley was diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy, but argues that the diagnosis, by itself, does not indicate a severe impairment. This statement of the law is true, as far as it goes. However, the ALJ still had a duty to consider Ms. Talley’s diabetic retinopathy when considering her residual functional capacity, and it appears that he failed to do so.In November, 2009, Ms. Talley was referred for an eye examination after complaints that her eyes were hurting. The records from Ms. Talley’s visit to an opthamologist in November, 2008, indicate that she had a history of retinal bleeding and glaucoma. In a narrative report dated November 13, 2009, Gary Russell, M.D., a physician at River Valley Medical Center, wrote that, according to her ophthalmologist, Ms. Talley had diabetic retinopathy with marked decrease in her vision and at least one retinal hemorrhage that was treated with laser therapy. On November 19, 2009, Ms. Talley was seen at River Valley Christian Clinic (“River Valley”) complaining of vision problems. She was referred to an eye doctor.At the hearing, Ms. Talley testified that she had glasses, but that they were for distance vision and not for reading. She stated that she was no longer able to read the newspaper because her vision was impaired. However, she was able to read a large-print Bible. She also testified that one reason she used a cane was to help her deal with her visual impairment because she had difficulty detecting depth and color change.In spite of considerable evidence in the record indicating that Ms. Talley’s diabetic retinopathy has more than a minimal effect on her ability to work, it does not appear that the ALJ considered it when assessing her residual functional capacity. The ALJ found that Ms. Talley was capable of working as a production worker which, according to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, would require her to frequently use near acuity and depth perception, and to occasionally use color vision. Employment and Training Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th ed. rev. 1991). Further, it does not appear that any consulting or examining source offered an opinion about the extent of visual limitation caused by Ms. Talley’s retinopathy. Remand is necessary for the ALJ to more fully and fairly develop the record regarding the extent of Ms. Talley’s visual impairment, if any.2. Peripheral NeuropathyOn November 7, 2007, Kenneth Turner, M.D., diagnosed Ms. Talley with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. On September 18, 2008, Ms. Talley complained of numbness and tingling during her visit to River Valley.At the hearing, Ms. Talley testified that her feet and legs were cold and numb bilaterally. She stated that she had problems with strength and grip, could not open jars, and dropped things. She had difficulty holding a glass of milk because of problems with her grip. She also stated that her peripheral neuropathy caused her knees to buckle, leading her to use a cane. She had difficulty getting up and down the three steps leading to her house.In his opinion, the ALJ acknowledged Ms. Talley’s diabetic neuropathy and considered whether there was documentation of neuropathy in two extremities significant enough to meet a Listing. He also noted that her diabetes could cause “tingling and numbness” in the hands or feet. When assessing Ms. Talley’s residual functional capacity, however, the ALJ focused his assessment only on the neuropathy in her feet. He noted that she had reported numbness, tingling, and pain in her feet. The ALJ stressed, however, that the orthopedic specialist had found that she had normal gait, that her neurovascular status was intact, and that she had positive straight leg tests. The ALJ concluded that Ms. Talley could sit for six hours; stand/walk for two hours; and could occasionally climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop, or crouch. The ALJ did not address the evidence in the record indicating that Ms. Talley’s peripheral neuropathy also affected her hands. He did not limit her residual functional capacity in any way related to her hands and concluded she could perform work as a credit authorizer and interviewer — jobs that require frequent handling. The ALJ’s failure to fully account for Ms. Talley’s peripheral neuropathy in assessing residual functional capacity is error. Again, it does not appear that any examining medical professional had ordered a nerve conduction study of Ms. Talley or had offered an opinion as to the extent of the limitation caused by her peripheral neuropathy. On remand, the Commissioner should consider the effect, if any, that Ms. Talley’s peripheral neuropathy in her legs, hands, and feet has on her residual functional capacity.3. Hip PainMs. Talley alleges that it was error for the ALJ not to conclude that her hip pain was a severe impairment. The ALJ acknowledged Ms. Talley’s complaints of hip pain at various points in his opinion. He noted that Ms. Talley complained of hip pain to Dr. Turner, who recorded in treatment notes that Ms. Talley had a right hip that “pops out at times.” The ALJ also acknowledged that Ms. Talley was examined by Owen Kelly, M.D., at Arkansas Orthopaedic Institute in November, 2007. Dr. Kelly took x-rays of Ms. Talley that revealed some degenerative disc disease. On examination, he noted that she had normal gait, but tenderness of the greater trochanter bursa and around the lumbosacral area. He diagnosed low back pain, degenerative disc disease, and right leg radiculopathy. He ordered an MRI of Ms. Talley’s lumbar spine, but she reported to Dr. Turner that she was unable to have the test because of her financial situation. On October 2, 2008, Ms. Talley complained of hip pain during a visit to Stanley Teeter, M.D., at River Valley. She was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis in her hip. Dr. Teeter prescribed Etodolac but, as the ALJ noted, that medication was discontinued due to gastritis. At her hearing, Ms. Talley testified that Dr. Teeter had told her she had “bone against bone” on her right hip, and that her hip socket was degenerated. She stated that he had advised her to keep as much weight as possible off of it, so she used a cane. Additionally, Ms. Talley testified that she was not able to bend down to pick up objects that dropped on the floor. She relied on her brother or mother to come to her house and do that for her. The ALJ discounted the effects of Ms. Talley’s hip pain, noting that no surgical treatment was recommended. However, Dr. Kelly, the orthopedic specialist, had ordered an MRI in order to have a complete work-up on Ms. Talley, but she was not able to have the test because of her limited financial resources. She never returned to Dr. Kelly, but instead continued to seek treatment for hip pain from her general practitioners at the free clinic.Further, the ALJ noted that none of Ms. Talley’s doctors had restricted her activities. However, Ms. Talley’s testimony contradicts this assertion. She testified that Dr. Teeter had advised her to keep as much weight off of her hip as possible. The ALJ’s opinion does not offer any explanation for discrediting this testimony. Further, Dr. Russell, one of Ms. Talley’s treating physicians, stated that Ms. Talley was unable to sit or stay in one position for an extended period of time. While the ALJ did not have Dr. Russell’s assessment at the time he wrote his opinion, the Court may consider that opinion, which was available to, and considered by, the Appeals Council. The court’s role is to determine whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence including the evidence submitted after the determination was made.The ALJ’s conclusion that Ms. Talley could perform sedentary work and could occasionally climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop, and couch is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Mental ImpairmentsMs. Talley also claims that the ALJ erred in assessing her mental impairments. The ALJ concluded Ms. Talley had moderate restriction in activities of daily living; in her social functioning; and in concentration, persistence, and pace. He noted that she was hospitalized in 2001 following a suicide attempt. The ALJ found that Ms. Talley’s mood disorder was a severe impairment, but he concluded that she maintained the residual functional capacity for unskilled work. Ms. Talley points out that the ALJ declined to discuss the mental consultative examination performed by Don Ott, Psy.D., on September 17, 2008. Dr. Ott observed that, during the examination, Ms. Talley’s affect was rigid and flat. He stated that she made very little eye contact, and that her voice was tired and resigned. She seemed distracted and talked excessively during the evaluation. Dr. Ott concluded that Ms. Talley’s social interaction was “fairly limited.” Her concentration was impaired, and her capacity to cope with the mental demands of work was deficient. Dr. Ott diagnosed Ms. Talley with major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate and assigned a GAF score of 50-60. The Commissioner points out that the ALJ addressed Dr. Ott’s opinion by stating, “the opinions of the claimant’s examining and treating physicians are given substantial weight consistent with 20 C.F.R. 404.1527.” Further, he argues that Dr. Ott’s opinion is not contradictory to the ALJ’s assessment of Ms. Talley’s residual functional capacity, pointing out that Dr. Ott “never opined as to Plaintiff’s actual limitations in concentration or any work-related domain.” The ALJ’s handling of Dr. Ott’s opinion was inadequate. As explained in Social Security Ruling 96-6p, administrative law judges and the Appeals Council are not bound by findings made by State agency or other program physicians and psychologists, but they cannot ignore these opinions and must explain the weight given to the opinions in their decisions. SSR 96-6p (1996). Dr. Ott’s opinion that Ms. Talley’s concentration was impaired and that her ability to cope with the mental demands of work was deficient should have at least been addressed by the ALJ in his opinion. he ALJ’s assessment of Ms. Talley’s treatment records was also deficient. In his opinion, the ALJ based his residual functional capacity assessment on the July, 2008 assessment of Richard H. Sundermann, Jr., M.D. (Tr. 443-44) Dr. Sundermann recounted Ms. Talley’s history of depression and anxiety. He noted that she had been unable to afford Effexor and had switched to a generic, but had been unable to afford even an adequate dose of the generic drug. He diagnosed Ms. Talley with moderate, recurrent major depressive disorder and prescribed Effexor, which he could supply to her through a patient assistance program. The ALJ states the Effexor resulted in fewer suicidal thoughts and an improved mood. He summarized the remaining treatment notes by stating that Ms. Talley continued to attend therapy sessions and medication management, “with a few more changes in the medications and improvement of her mood.” Based on this analysis of Ms. Talley’s treatment records, the ALJ concluded that she could perform unskilled work. The ALJ’s assessment that Ms. Talley’s depression and anxiety were controlled with medication and therapy is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. In April, 2008, Ms. Talley complained of increased anxiety and depression to Dr. Turner. He referred her to Counseling Associates noting that, “[s]he is not actually suicidal but needs more intensive care for depression than I can provide alone.” In May of 2008, Ms. Talley called Dr. Turner’s office seeking samples of Effexor because she could not purchase her medication. He was unable to provide samples of Effexor and changed her medication to Cymbalta. On June 4, 2008, Ms. Talley presented to Counseling Associates complaining of anxiety and depression since she was a child. She reported daily symptoms of depression and anxiety, stating that her social anxiety was so severe that she remained isolated and felt like a failure. She was initially diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate, without psychotic features, and anxiety disorder with agoraphobia. She was assigned a GAF score of 50. (Tr. 331-336)On July 9, 2008, Dr. Sundermann evaluated Ms. Talley. He noted that she had a difficult time digesting her food and medicine because she had undergone gastric bypass surgery in 2001. He stated that Prozac, which Ms. Talley had previously taken with good result, had stopped working. She reported a failed suicide attempt years earlier, which had resulted in her being psychiatrically hospitalized for seven days. Dr. Sundermann prescribed Effexor XR and therapy. On August 26, 2008, Ms. Talley began therapy with Erin Willcutt, LAC. On September 8, 2008, Ms. Talley was evaluated by Sam Hernandez, APN. Progress notes from the visit indicate that Ms. Talley reported that her depression seemed worse and that she wanted to stay in bed most of the time. She was observed to have a flat affect and admitted to having fleeting suicidal thoughts with a plan at times. Nurse Hernandez increased her Effexor, and Ms. Talley agreed to allow her brother to help her manage her medications.During a therapy session on September 12, 2008, Ms. Talley seemed to be doing better. But on October 1, 2008, her therapist noted that her response to treatment has been “marginal,” and her anxiety level was very high. On October 6, 2008, Ms. Talley returned to Nurse Hernandez, who noted that she seemed to be doing quite a bit better. Ms. Talley returned to see Ms. Willcutt on October 14, 2008. Ms. Willcutt noted that Ms. Talley seemed to be doing a little better, but still has difficulty getting motivated to do things to improve her situation. During visits on November 12, 2008, and December 9, 2008, Ms. Talley reported doing better. On December 11, 2008, Nurse Hernandez diagnosed major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate and continued her on Effexor and individual therapy. On January 15, 2009, Ms. Talley reported feeling a little more depressed, but she returned on February 4, 3009, to report feeling better. Ms. Willcutt noted that at her session on March 6, 2009, Ms. Talley had a depressed mood. She noted that Ms. Talley was not doing as well as she had been at her last visit and reported feeling very depressed after her mother had yelled at her.Ms. Talley was examined by Roy Ragsdill, M.D., on April 7, 2009. Ms. Talley complained to Dr. Ragsdill of problems with her mother and social anxiety. He suggested adding dependent personality traits to her diagnosis and noted that Ms. Talley had only a “partial response to Effexor” but that he was “reluctant” to change her medications. He continued her medications and suggested an increase in therapy to weekly. Ms. Willcutt reported that on April 21, 2009, Ms. Talley’s response to therapy was “minimal” and her thought patterns were “very negative.” Ms. Willcutt suggested that they increase their sessions. On May 5, 2009, Ms. Talley was noted to have a very depressed mood, negative thought process, and very tearful behavior. Ms. Talley admitted to thoughts of wanting to die and not wanting to go on, but denied any plan or intent to harm herself. Ms. Willcutt discussed possible acute care with Ms. Talley, but she rejected the idea because she had formerly worked at the acute unit and felt this would make her feel like more of a failure. Ms. Willcutt noted that cognitive therapy was minimally successful and noted her intention to meet with her case manager and discuss the case with Ms. Talley’s psychiatrist. Ms. Willcutt recommended an increased level of care for Ms. Talley with weekly therapy and meetings twice per month with her case manager. Notes from Ms. Talley’s May 20, 2009 therapy session indicate that she exhibited depressed mood, negative thought process, and no change in behavior of functioning. On June 16, 2009, Dr. Ragsdill examined Ms. Talley. He noted that her mood was somewhat better, but discussed with her the possibility of adding lithium as an augmentation to her treatment. Ms. Talley rejected the idea. Notes from Ms. Talley’s therapy session with Ms. Willcutt on November 18, 2009, indicate that Ms. Talley’s response to therapy was not positive. She stated, “Brenda is very depressed and apathetic about her current living situation. She was very negative in session and reports having no energy to do or work on current situation. She reports feeling like `Brenda’ is slipping away.” Ms. Willcutt noted that “Brenda is isolating and avoiding friends, family, and appointments when possible.” She recommended that Ms. Talley increase the frequency of her therapy sessions and case management appointments. Ms. Willcutt met with Ms. Talley again on December 9, 2009. She noted that Ms. Talley’s mood was depressed and overwhelmed; her thoughts were negative; and her behavior was anxious. Ms. Talley reported difficulties living with her mentally ill mother and brother. Ms. Willcutt noted that Ms. Talley’s activity level was “significantly reduced.” On December 9, 2009, Ms. Talley was also seen by her psychiatrist, Dr. Ragsdill. He noted that Ms. Talley was walking with a cane, was anxious, and did not want to go out much. He assessed that she was having an “incomplete response” to her antidepressant regimen. He increased her Effexor to the maximum dose and added lithium. In a treatment and prognosis summary dated December 13, 2009, Ms. Willcutt noted that Ms. Talley’s depression and anxiety had increased over the past several months. She pointed out that Ms. Talley’s thought patterns were increasingly negative and her anxiety was more apparent. She stated that she had agreed with her current diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate to severe and anxiety disorder NOS and stated that, in her opinion, Ms. Talley’s prognosis was guarded, due to the recurrent nature of her mental disorder and severe stressors. Evidence from treating sources are generally accorded great weight because they are most able to provide a longitudinal picture of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927. The ALJ had access to Ms. Talley’s treatment records from Counseling Associates through June, 2009, but opted to focus on the first few months of her treatment, when she showed some signs of improvement. The Appeals Council had access to Ms. Talley’s records through December, 2009, but concluded that the information did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ’s decision. The Court disagrees. The treating source records, taken as a whole, indicate that Ms. Talley’s depression and anxiety had not improved on medication but, in fact, steadily declined after March of 2009. The ALJ erred by failing to address Dr. Ott’s opinion and by relying on a six-month snapshot of Ms. Talley’s treatment records when assessing her mental residual functional capacity. IV. Conclusion After consideration of the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded for action consistent with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED.