MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KATHERINE P. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Janie A. Milne has brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying her applications for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits ("DIB"), and widow's insurance benefits ("WIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. With the consent of the parties, the Court has designated the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 73. (See Docs. 30, 31).

Upon consideration of the parties' briefs (Docs. 21, 27) and those portions of the administrative record (Doc. 20) (hereinafter cited as "(R. [page number(s) in lower-right corner of transcript])") relevant to the issues raised,1 the Court finds that the Commissioner's decision is due to be REVERSED and REMANDED for rehearing under sentence four of § 405(g).

I. Background

On March 28, 2012, Milne filed applications for a period of disability, DIB, and WIB with the Social Security Administration ("SSA"),2 alleging disability beginning December 24, 2008.3 After her applications were initially denied, Milne requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") for the SSA, which was held on September 27, 2013, with a supplemental hearing held March 21, 2014. On April 24, 2014, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on Milne's applications, finding her "not disabled" under the Social Security Act and thus not entitled to benefits. (See R. 13-30). The Commissioner's decision on Milne's applications became final when the Appeals Council denied Milne's request for review of the ALJ's decision on November 5, 2015. (R. 1-6). On December 29, 2015, Milne filed this action under § 405(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. (Doc. 1). See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ("Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow."); Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2007) ("The settled law of this Circuit is that a court may review, under sentence four of section 405(g), a denial of review by the Appeals Council.").

II. Standards of Review

"In Social Security appeals, [the Court] must determine whether the Commissioner's decision is `"supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion."'" Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997))). However, the Court "`may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].'" Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983))). "`Even if the evidence preponderates against the [Commissioner]'s factual findings, we must affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.'" Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)).

"Yet, within this narrowly circumscribed role, [courts] do not act as automatons. [The court] must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence[.]" Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239 (citations and quotation omitted). See also Owens v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) ("We are neither to conduct a de novo proceeding, nor to rubber stamp the administrative decisions that come before us. Rather, our function is to ensure that the decision was based on a reasonable and consistently applied standard, and was carefully considered in light of all the relevant facts."). "In determining whether substantial evidence exists, [a court] must. . .tak[e] into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the [Commissioner's] decision." Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986).

However, the "substantial evidence" "standard of review applies only to findings of fact. No similar presumption of validity attaches to the [Commissioner]'s conclusions of law, including determination of the proper standards to be applied in reviewing claims." MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986) (quotation omitted). Accord, e.g., Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387, 1389 (11th Cir. 1982) ("Our standard of review for appeals from the administrative denials of Social Security benefits dictates that `(t)he findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . ..' 42 U.S.C.A. s 405(g) (West Supp. 1982) (emphasis added). As is plain from the statutory language, this deferential standard of review is applicable only to findings of fact made by the Secretary, and it is well established that no similar presumption of validity attaches to the Secretary's conclusions of law, including determination of the proper standards to be applied in reviewing claims." (footnote and some citations and quotation marks omitted)). This Court "conduct[s] `an exacting examination' of these factors." Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (quoting Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)). "`The [Commissioner]'s failure to apply the correct law or to provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis has been conducted mandates reversal.'" Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991)). Accord Keeton v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994).

In sum, courts "review the Commissioner's factual findings with deference and the Commissioner's legal conclusions with close scrutiny." Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). See also Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("In Social Security appeals, we review de novo the legal principles upon which the Commissioner's decision is based. Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). However, we review the resulting decision only to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir. 2004).").

Thornton v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 597 F. App'x 604, 609 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished).4 As Milne has not yet attained age 60, she was also required to show disability to qualify for WIB. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(e).5

Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v); Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237-39).6

"These regulations place a very heavy burden on the claimant to demonstrate both a qualifying disability and an inability to perform past relevant work." Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211 (citing Spencer v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 1090, 1093 (11th Cir. 1985)). "In determining whether the claimant has satisfied this initial burden, the examiner must consider four factors: (1) objective medical facts or clinical findings; (2) the diagnoses of examining physicians; (3) evidence of pain; and (4) the claimant's age, education, and work history." Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001, 1005 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (citing Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam)). "These factors must be considered both singly and in combination. Presence or absence of a single factor is not, in itself, conclusive." Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1240 (citations omitted).

If, in Steps One through Four of the five-step evaluation, a claimant proves that he or she has a qualifying disability and cannot do his or her past relevant work, it then becomes the Commissioner's burden, at Step Five, to prove that the claimant is capable—given his or her age, education, and work history—of engaging in another kind of substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999); Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 836 (11th Cir. 1985). Finally, although the "claimant bears the burden of demonstrating the inability to return to [his or] her past relevant work, the Commissioner of Social Security has an obligation to develop a full and fair record." Shnorr v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir. 1987). See also Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) ("It is well-established that the ALJ has a basic duty to develop a full and fair record. Nevertheless, the claimant bears the burden of proving that he is disabled, and, consequently, he is responsible for producing evidence in support of his claim." (citations omitted)). "This is an onerous task, as the ALJ must scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all relevant facts. In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider the evidence as a whole." Henry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citation and quotation omitted).

Where, as here, the ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council denied review of that decision, the Court "review[s] the ALJ's decision as the Commissioner's final decision." Doughty, 245 F.3d at 1278. "[W]hen the [Appeals Council] has denied review, [the Court] will look only to the evidence actually presented to the ALJ in determining whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence." Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 1998). If the applicant attacks only the ALJ's decision, the Court may not consider evidence that was presented to the Appeals Council but not to the ALJ. See id. at 1324.

III. Analysis

At Step One, the ALJ determined that Milne had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged disability onset date, December 24, 2008. (R. 19). At Step Two, the ALJ determined that Milne had the following severe impairments: pes planus of the left foot status post surgery; depressive disorder; anxiety disorder; benzodiazepine and opioid dependence; posttraumatic stress disorder; obesity; lumbosacral facet degenerative joint disease; ventral hernia; and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. (R. 19). At Step Three, the ALJ found that Milne did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the severity of one of the specified impairments in the relevant Listing of Impairments. (R. 19-20).

At Step Four,

Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238-39 (footnote omitted).

The ALJ determined that Milne had the RFC "to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b)[,]"7 with the following limitations:

(R. 20-21).

Based on this RFC, the ALJ determined that Milne was unable to perform any past relevant work. (R. 28). At Step Five, the ALJ, after taking testimony from a vocational expert, found that there exist significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that Milne can perform given her RFC, age, education, and work experience. (R. 28-29). Thus, the ALJ found that Milne was not disabled under the Social Security Act. (R. 29). Milne's lone claim of error is that the ALJ erred in assigning less than substantial or considerable weight to the medical opinion of treating physician Dr. Edith G. McCreadie.

Evidence considered by the Commissioner in making a disability determination may include medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). " `Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s), including [the claimant's] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant's] physical or mental restrictions.'" Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178-79 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2)). "There are three tiers of medical opinion sources: (1) treating physicians; (2) nontreating, examining physicians; and (3) nontreating, nonexamining physicians." Himes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 585 F. App'x 758, 762 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.927(c)(1)-(2)). "In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician's relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician's opinion; (4) how consistent the physician's opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician's specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians." Eyre v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F. App'x 521, 523 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & (e), 416.927(c) & (e)).

The ALJ "may reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion." E.g., Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1240. However,

Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

"A `treating source' (i.e., a treating physician) is a claimant's `own physician, psychologist, or other acceptable medical source who provides[], or has provided[],[ the claimant] with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [the claimant].'" Nyberg v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 179 F. App'x 589, 591 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (unpublished) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502). "Absent `good cause,' an ALJ is to give the medical opinions of treating physicians `substantial or considerable weight.'" Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440). That is so because treating sources are likely in a better position "to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant's] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). "Good cause exists `when the: (1) treating physician's opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician's opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor's own medical records.' With good cause, an ALJ may disregard a treating physician's opinion, but he `must clearly articulate [the] reasons' for doing so." Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240-41) (internal citation omitted). See also, e.g., Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1240 ("[T]he opinion of a treating physician may be rejected when it is so brief and conclusory that it lacks persuasive weight or where it is unsubstantiated by any clinical or laboratory findings. Further, the Secretary may reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion." (citation omitted)). An ALJ's failure to clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician is reversible error. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d at 1440 (citing MacGregor, 786 F.2d at 1053).

Dr. McCreadie provided a medical opinion in a Mental Residual Functional Questionnaire ("MRFQ") completed May 16, 2012, 2012 (R. 428-429 [SSA Ex. 9F]).8 The ALJ summarized the MRFQ as follows:

(R. 24).

As the ALJ acknowledged in his decision, Milne had "seen Dr. McCreadie for close to five years for posttraumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) and depression," seeing her "every two to three months" during that time. (R. 22-23). The ALJ was also presented with "[m]edical records" from Dr. McCreadie "from November 9, 2009 through February 3, 2014." (R. 25 (citing SSA Exs. 5F, 6F, 14F, 15F, 17F, 18F, 19F, and 21F)). However, the ALJ considered only Dr. McCreadie's brief, one-page April 26, 2012 treatment note (R. 422 [SSA Ex. 6F]) indicating "that the claimant's visual acuity was 20/70 in right eye and 20/50 in left eye. . ." (R. 25). The rest of Dr. McCreadie's "handwritten treatment notes" were dismissed by the ALJ as "eligible" (presumably intending to state "illegible"). (R. 25). As for the MRFQ, the ALJ assigned Dr. McCreadie's opinion "no substantial weight," finding that it was "not consistent with the treatment and examination evidence or the claimant's post-alleged onset date of disability work history. . ." (R. 26).

Milne is correct that conclusory statements such as this are generally insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy an ALJ's duty to "clearly articulate" "good cause" for disregarding a treating physician's opinion.9 Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Coupled with the ALJ's express refusal to consider a significant portion of relevant record medical evidence, the Court readily concludes that "it is impossible . . . to determine whether the ultimate decision on the merits of the claim is rational and supported by substantial evidence." Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (quotation omitted).10

Alternatively, remand is also appropriate because Milne was prejudiced by the ALJ's failure to attempt to re-contact Dr. McCreadie before disregarding the bulk of treatment notes as illegible.

Prince v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 551 F. App'x 967, 971-72 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished). See also Couch v. Astrue, 267 F. App'x 853, 855 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished) (similar).

The ALJ's failure to seek clarification from Dr. McCreadie on her notes clearly prejudiced Milne. Dr. McCreadie was the only treating source to provide a medical opinion regarding Milne's mental impairments, and her treatment notes spanned most of the period between Milne's alleged disability onset date and the date of Milne's administrative hearing. As documented in the ALJ's decision, the only other objective medical evidence related to Milne's mental impairments consisted of treatment notes documenting sporadic visits to various healthcare providers. The ALJ did not identify what part(s) of these other records were so inconsistent with Dr. McCreadie's opinion that the ALJ felt justified in disregarding it, and the undersigned's review of the ALJ's discussion of this evidence reveals nothing overly convincing. The ALJ's assertion that Dr. McCreadie's opinion was also inconsistent with Milne's "post-alleged onset date of disability work history" is equally unconvincing, given that this work history consisted solely of babysitting her niece's two year old child three days a week for approximately six hours at a time, a job which lasted between six months and a year (the ALJ's decision is inconsistent in stating how long). The ALJ's assignment of "no significant weight" to Dr. McCreadie's opinion also left him free to assign greater weight to the less severe opinions of one-time examining psychologist Dr. Kenneth Starkey and a non-examining state agency psychologist. Further demonstrating how the ALJ's disregard of Dr. McCreadie's treatment notes prejudiced Milne, the ALJ expressly decried "the paucity of medical evidence," "the overall lack of persistent and regular treatment," and the "wide gaps between treatment visits," finding it was "reasonable to assume that if the claimant were experiencing physical and/or mental difficulties to a disabling degree, she would have presented to her physicians for ongoing treatment." (R. 27).

Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS Milne's claim of error and finds that the Commissioner's final decision is due to be REVERSED and REMANDED. Milne conclusorily suggests that this case "should be reversed and the Plaintiff found disabled." Generally, however, remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings "is warranted where the ALJ has failed to apply the correct legal standards." Davis v. Shalala, 985 F.2d 528, 534 (11th Cir. 1993). This Court may enter an order "awarding disability benefits where the [Commissioner] has already considered the essential evidence and it is clear that the cumulative effect of the evidence establishes disability without any doubt." Id. See also Carnes v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1215, 1219 (11th Cir. 1991) ("The credibility of witnesses is for the Secretary to determine, not the courts. . .The decision of the Secretary here, however, rests not so much on the credibility of the `history of pain; presented by Carnes, as on the adoption of a legal standard improper under Listing 10.10(A). []The record in this case is fully developed and there is no need to remand for additional evidence. Based on the facts adduced below and after application of the proper legal standard, we hold that claimant met the requirements of Listing 10.10(A) as early as 1982."). Here, remand is being ordered largely because the Commissioner did not consider all of the essential evidence. Because Milne's claim of disability appears to rest largely on the opinion of Dr. McCreadie, and because the ALJ may still be justified in assigning it less than substantial or considerable weight, the cumulative effect of the evidence currently does not establish disability without any doubt.11

Thus, the Court will instead reverse and remand this action to the Commissioner for further proceedings. On remand, if the Commissioner again decides to assign less than substantial or considerable weight to Dr. McCreadie's opinion, she must clearly articulate the reasons for doing so, and those reasons must constitute "good cause." Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Additionally, if the Commissioner concludes that she is still unable to decipher Dr. McCreadie's treatment notes, the Commissioner must make a reasonable effort to recontact Dr. McCreadie to obtain additional evidence or clarification.

IV. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing analysis, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's final decision issued November 5, 2015, denying Milne's applications for a period of disability, DIB, and WIB is REVERSED and REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991), for further proceedings consistent with this decision. This remand under sentence four of § 405(g) makes Milne a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), and terminates this Court's jurisdiction over this matter.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), should Milne be awarded Social Security benefits on her applications following this remand, the Court hereby grants Milne's counsel an extension of time in which to file a petition for authorization of fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) until thirty days after the date of receipt of a notice of award of benefits from the SSA.12 Consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c), "the date of receipt of notice . . . shall be presumed to be 5 days after the date of such notice, unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary." If multiple award notices are issued, the time for filing a § 406(b) fee petition shall run from the date of receipt of the latest-dated notice.

Final judgment shall issue separately in accordance with this Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

DONE and ORDERED.