A Low IQ Score May Qualify You For Social Security Benefits.

SLATER v. ASTRUE
DEMON V. SLATER, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security.
March 23, 2012.
Demon Victorell Slater, Plaintiff, represented by Quinn Eric Brock, Brock & Stout.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, represented by Dorrelyn K Dietrich, Social Security Admin, Office of General Counsel Region VIII, John Jay Lee, Social Security Administration, & Robert Randolph Neeley, U.S. Attorney’s Office.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.
Demon V. Slater (“Plaintiff” or “Slater”) originally applied for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq., on August 23, 2007. After being denied, Slater timely filed for and received a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ“) who rendered an unfavorable decision on February 18, 2010. Slater subsequently petitioned for review to the Appeals Council who rejected review of Slater’s case on March 17, 2011. As a result, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). Id. Judicial review proceeds pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After a thorough review of the record in this case and the briefs of the parties, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner should be REVERSED and this case REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
I. NATURE OF THE CASE
Slater seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. United States District Courts may conduct limited review of such decisions to determine whether they comply with applicable law and are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405. The court may affirm, reverse and remand with instructions, or reverse and render a judgment. Id.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is a limited one. The Court’s sole function is to determine whether the ALJ’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied.
“The Social Security Act mandates that `findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.’” Thus, this Court must find the Commissioner’s decision conclusive if it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla — i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact, and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion.
If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, the district court will affirm, even if the court would have reached a contrary result as finder of fact, and even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings. The Court “may not decide facts anew, re-weigh the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner],” but rather it “must defer to the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.”
The Court will also reverse a Commissioner’s decision on plenary review if the decision applies incorrect law, or if the decision fails to provide the district court with sufficient reasoning to determine that the Commissioner properly applied the law.
III. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Social Security Act’s general disability insurance benefits program (“DIB“) provides income to individuals who are forced into involuntary, premature retirement, provided they are both insured and disabled, regardless of indigence. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(a). The Social Security Act’s Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) is a separate and distinct program. SSI is a general public assistance measure providing an additional resource to the aged, blind, and disabled to assure that their income does not fall below the poverty line. Eligibility for SSI is based upon proof of indigence and disability. However, despite the fact they are separate programs, the law and regulations governing a claim for DIB and a claim for SSI are identical; therefore, claims for DIB and SSI are treated identically for the purpose of determining whether a claimant is disabled. Applicants under DIB and SSI must provide “disability” within the meaning of the Social Security Act which defines disability in virtually identical language for both programs. A person is entitled to disability benefits when the person is unable to
Engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
A “physical or mental impairment” is one resulting from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.
The Commissioner of Social Security employs a five-step, sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits.
(1) Is the person presently unemployed?
(2) Is the person’s impairment(s) severe?
(3) Does the person’s impairment(s) meet or equal one of the specific impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1?3
(4) Is the person unable to perform his or her former occupation?
(5) Is the person unable to perform any other work within the economy?
An affirmative answer to any of the questions leads either to the next question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of “not disabled.”
The burden of proof rests on a claimant through Step 4. Claimants establish a prima facie case of qualifying disability once they meet the burden of proof from Step 1 through Step 4. At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner, who must then show there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform. Id.
To perform the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). Id. at 1238-39. RFC is what the claimant is still able to do despite his impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other evidence. Id. It also can contain both exertional and nonexertional limitations. Id. at 1242-43. At the fifth step, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to determine if there are jobs available in the national economy the claimant can perform. Id. at 1239. To do this, the ALJ can either use the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“grids”) or hear testimony from a vocational expert (VE). Id. at 1239-40.
The grids allow the ALJ to consider factors such as age, confinement to sedentary or light work, inability to speak English, educational deficiencies, and lack of job experience. Each factor can independently limit the number of jobs realistically available to an individual. Id. at 1240. Combinations of these factors yield a statutorily-required finding of “Disabled” or “Not Disabled.” Id.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Slater, age 36 at the time of the hearing, completed the twelfth grade and received a certificate of completion. Slater had special education classes in high school and has limited reading and writing abilities. Slater performed past relevant work as an industrial cleaner (unskilled, medium). Slater has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged disability onset date of August 23, 2007. Slater has not “ever really worked,” except for a couple positions which spans from a few days to a few weeks. Slater’s mother supports him from her fixed income. Slater claims he is unable to work because he suffers from major depression, anxiety, diabetes, depression, and an IQ score that falls within the range of mental retardation. Slater received disability benefits in the past until the benefits were terminated upon his incarceration.
Slater’s alleged disabilities stem from multiple sources.A doctor diagnosed Slater as suffering from diabetes in 1997. He received regular treatment to control his diabetes, while he received disability benefits and also while incarcerated, but upon release Slater has been unable to afford his medications except when he was able to attain his medications free of charge. Id. Slater alleges that his diabetes has caused him to be admitted to the hospital and the doctors have had to increase his insulin dosage. Slater alleges that he has diabetic neuropathy which causes pain and numbness in his lower legs, feet, and sometimes in his left hand. Id. Slater also alleges that he suffers from hypertension (high blood pressure). Id. Slater is also unable to afford the medications to control his neuropathy and hypertension.
Since Slater’s release from incarceration, he alleges that he suffers from anxiety and major depression. Slater alleges that his anxiety and depression cause him to randomly begin crying, to feel shortness of breath and pain in his chest, and difficulty sleeping. Slater claims that when on his medication these symptoms subside and he is able to sleep well, but at the moment he is unable to afford his medications. Slater also claims that he has difficulty getting along with other people and mostly keeps to himself. Slater alleges that he suffers from mental retardation as defined in the listings of impairments section 12.05. IQ tests reveal Slater has a score of 64 in verbal intelligence IQ, 62 in performance IQ, and a full scale IQ of 60. Slater was in special education classes in high school and alleges that he cannot read or spell very well. Slater also claims that while watching television he is unable to concentrate or follow the storyline.
Slater received treatment from various medical practitioners and the ALJ considered the medical records from these practitioners. The records of Charles A. Wood, M.D. from September and October of 2002 show that Slater was monitored for hypertension, diabetes, and peripheral neuropathy. Slater had elevated glucose and hemoglobin A1C levels. Id. Also, Dr. Woods found Slater suffers from depression post a suicide attempt.
In November of 2007, Mark B. Ellis, D.O. performed a consultative physical evaluation. Id. Slater reported to Dr. Ellis that he sufferes from depression, poor reading skills, diabetes, neuropathy with bilateral leg burning and numbness, decreased sensation to light touch in the feet, and leg weakness. Dr. Ellis found decreased sensation to light touch from Slater’s knees down “becoming more prominent” at the feet, as well as decreased sensation on the bottom and back of Slater’s feet. Dr. Ellis’ diagnostic impression was “poorly controlled diabetes with diabetic neuropathy; and hypertension, high cholesterol, and depression all by history.” Dr. Ellis recommended optimal diabetic care; however, a month later Slater was admitted to Dale Medical Center for uncontrolled diabetes mellitus with a glucose level of 700, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, hypertension, and neuropathy.
Also in November of 2007, Randall Jordan, Psy.D saw Slater for a consultative mental evaluation. Slater reported depression with chronic sadness, sleep disturbances, and being in special education classes while in school. Id. Dr. Jordan noted that Slater exhibited restricted affect, compromised memory, and below average fund of information. Dr. Jordan administered a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Third Edition (“Wechsler”) which tested Slater on verbal, performance, and full scale IQ. Slater earned scores of 64, 62, and 60, respectively. Dr. Jordan noted that these scores are indicative of intellect in the range of mental retardation. Id. However, Dr. Jordan also noted a diagnostic impression of malingering.
In June of 2009, Slater returned to Dale Medical Center with complaints of chest pain. In July of 2009, Slater underwent a stress test which revealed “resting baseline hypertensive heart disease and a marked accelerated hypertensive response to chemical stress.” After being released from Dale Medical Center, Connie Chandler, M.D. followed Slater for chest pain, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia. Slater received numerous medications to control his symptoms. Id. The ALJ noted that no noticeable physical symptoms or complications associated with hyperlipidemia were evidenced, and because of such the ALJ found that it has no effect on Slater’s ability to work. In August of 2009, Dr. Fernando Lopez at Spectra Care saw Slater for his “depressive disorder” and “psychotic features.” Slater claimed he had “sleep disturbances with intermittent nightmares, visual hallucinations, panic attacks, nervousness, and paranoia.” Id. Dr. Lopez proscribed psychotropic medications to Slater to manage his depressive and psychotic symptoms. Id.
V. ISSUES
Slater raises two issues for judicial review:
(1) Whether the ALJ failed to consider if Slater’s medically determinable impairments met or equaled listing 12.05(C); and
(2) Whether the ALJ’s Residual Functional Capacity finding failed to include the required “function-by-function” assessment. See Doc. 12 at 3.
VI. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The plaintiff raises several issues and arguments related to this Court’s ultimate inquiry of whether the Commissioner’s disability decision is supported by the proper legal standards and substantial evidence. “[n]o presumption of validity attaches to the Secretary’s determination of the proper legal standards to be applied in evaluating claims”). However, the Court pretermits discussion of the plaintiff’s specific arguments because the Court concludes that the ALJ erred as a matter of law at step three of the sequential analysis. Ergo, the ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ notes:
At step three, the undersigned must determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926). If the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the criteria of a listing and meets the duration requirement (20 CFR 416.909, the claimant is disabled.
The burden of proof rests on a claimant to establish a prima facie case of qualifying disability. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237-39. Slater argues that “the ALJ failed to consider whether Mr. Slater’s medically determinable impairments met or equaled listing 12.05(C).” (Pl. Br. 3). Slater provided sufficient medical evidence to meet the prima facie requirement in Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237-39. The record is replete with references to anxiety and depression, with the ALJ also noting the “full scale IQ scores of 64, 62, and 60.” Plaintiff directly argues the listing of 12.05(C) in the record of the hearing as well as testifying to other limiting factors.
In Fitts v. Massanari, the court “notes that the ALJ made an error more fundamental regarding the listings in that he never once mentioned Listing 12.05, specifically 12.05(C), in his decision denying benefits.” The court held that the ALJ erred in failing to include mild mental retardation in the list of severe impairments and in failing to analyze the evidence in light of the specific requirements of listing 12.05. Id. at *2. In Fitts the court noted that the ALJ’s finding documented both a physical impairment which imposed an “additional and significant work-related limitation of function” and that the record also contained evidence of a valid verbal, performance or full scale IQ score of 60 through 70. Id.
The Court recognizes that a valid IQ score does not mean that conclusive evidence of mental retardation exists, however the validity of IQ score must be addressed by the ALJ. Thomas v. Barnhart, (11th Cir. Dec. 7, 2004)(where the Eleventh Circuit specifically noted that the ALJ did not specifically address the validity of the claimant’s IQ score of 69 and there was “significant evidence” that the score was valid and remanded the case so that the ALJ may properly consider the validity of the claimant’s IQ score.). While the Court concludes there is some question as to the validity and accuracy of the IQ score of Slater, there is no analysis done by the ALJ for the Court to consider. See e.g. Outlaw v. Barnhart, 197 Fed.Appx. 825 (11th Cir. 2006) (where the court held that a “valid IQ score is not conclusive of mental retardation when the IQ score is inconsistent with other evidence in the record about claimant’s daily activities.”).
The Commissioner argues that Slater did not carry his burden to produce evidence that he met the criteria of the listing. (Def. Br. 13, at 7). “[A] claimant must have a diagnosis included in the Listings and must provide medial reports documenting that the conditions meet the specific criteria of the Listings and the duration requirement.” The ALJ must consider whether the claimant meets or equals the listings presented by the claimant. While the ALJ does not need to mechanically recite the fact that a claimant does not meet a listing in his decision, and that the failure to meet the listing may be implied from the record, the ALJ must develop a full and fair record sufficient for this Court to review. Additionally, the Court notes that Slater bears a burden “of proving that he is disabled, and consequently, he is responsible for producing evidence in support of his claim.” The Court makes the limited ruling that the issue of mental retardation pursuant to the listing 12.05(C) was raised sufficiently by Slater to show a prima facie case of a possible ailment that, by itself, can be found to be disabling, or disabling in conjunction with other disabilities, and the ALJ failed to address it in either the hearing or the opinion. The Court notes that the ALJ directly addressed and discussed the Listings for 12.04 and 12.06, looking at the “paragraph B” and “paragraph C” requirements, but conspicuously failed to address the 12.05(C) Listing that was directly argued by the Claimant.
Furthermore, because the ALJ did not recognize the evidence that Slater suffers from mental retardation, he did not properly consider the effects of this impairment on Slater’s ability to work. Consequently, the Court cannot determine whether the ALJ’s conclusion that Slater is not disabled is properly supported by substantial evidence. It is plain that the plaintiff suffers from physical and non-physical impairments, but it is less clear as to the effect of those impairments. “Even a `mild’ mental impairment may `prevent [a] claimant from engaging in the full range of jobs contemplated by the exertional category for which the claimant otherwise qualifies.’”
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Commissioner erred as a matter of law, and that the case warrants remand for further proceedings regarding whether the IQ score is valid, and if there are other mental or physical impairments that would cause the claimant to meet the listing under 12.05(C). The ALJ must consider every impairment alleged by the plaintiff and determine whether the alleged impairments are sufficiently severe — either singly or in combination — to create a disability. All of the plaintiff’s impairments must be considered in combination even when the impairments considered separately are not severe. In light of the ALJ’s failure to fully and fairly consider the evidence in the record of the plaintiff’s possible mental retardation, the Court concludes that the ALJ failed to meet his burden in this regard. As a result of his failure to consider the plaintiff’s impairments in combination, doubt is necessarily cast upon the ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff is not disabled.
V. ConclusionAccordingly, this case will be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A separate order will be entered.

How A Social Security Judge Can Tell When a Claimant Lies Under Oath.

GORREMANS v. ASTRUE
MICKAEL GORREMANS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security.

United States District Court, D. Idaho. March 16, 2012.
Mickael Gorrmans, Plaintiff, represented by Louis Garbrecht.
Commissioner Michael J. Astrue, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J Groebner, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION & Joanne P Rodriguez, US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.




MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
RONALD E. BUSH, Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court is Petitioner Mickael Gorremans’ Petition for Review filed September 16, 2010, seeking review of the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his disability benefits. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Having carefully reviewed the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
On January 9, 2009, Mickael Gorremans (“Petitioner”) applied for SSI disability benefits, alleging a disability onset date of December 24, 2008, when he was 56 years old. Petitioner’s claim was initially denied and, again, denied on reconsideration. Petitioner timely filed a Request for Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On February 9, 2010, ALJ James W. Sherry held a hearing in Spokane, Washington at which time Petitioner, represented by attorney Louis Garbrecht, appeared and testified. A vocational expert, K. Diane Kramer, also appeared and testified. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner had past relevant work as a groundskeeper, machine operator, janitor, floor cleaner/buffer, certified nurses assistant, and home health aide.
On April 8, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision, denying Petitioner’s claims, finding that Petitioner was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Petitioner timely requested review from the Appeals Council on June 3, 2010. The Appeals Council then denied review on August 23, 2010 rendering the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. Petitioner contends the ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Dirks, and improperly rejecting Petitioner’s own testimony. He also argues that the residual functional capacity finding is not supported by the record and that Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.06 directs a finding of disabled.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To be upheld, the Commissioner’s decision must be supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Findings as to any question of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In other words, if there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s factual decisions, they must be upheld, even when there is conflicting evidence.
“Substantial evidence” is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard requires more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance, and “does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence.”
With respect to questions of fact, the role of the Court is to review the record as a whole to determine whether it contains evidence that would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions of the ALJ. The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility and resolving conflicts in medical testimony, resolving ambiguities, and drawing inferences logically flowing from the evidence. Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation in a disability proceeding, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment or interpretation of the record for that of the ALJ.
With respect to questions of law, the ALJ’s decision must be based on proper legal standards and will be reversed for legal error. Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019. The ALJ’s construction of the Social Security Act is entitled to deference if it has a reasonable basis in law. See id. However, reviewing federal courts “will not rubber-stamp an administrative decision that is inconsistent with the statutory mandate or that frustrates the congressional purpose underlying the statute.”
III. DISCUSSION
A. Sequential Process
In evaluating the evidence presented at an administrative hearing, the ALJ must follow a sequential process in determining whether a person is disabled in general (see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920) — or continues to be disabled (see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594, 416.994) — within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
The first step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(I), 416.920(a)(4)(I). SGA is defined as work activity that is both substantial and gainful. “Substantial work activity” is work activity that involves doing significant physical or mental activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572(a), 416.972(a). “Gainful work activity” is work that is usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is realized. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572(b), 416.972(b). If the claimant has engaged in SGA, disability benefits are denied, regardless of how severe her physical/mental impairments are and regardless of her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If the claimant is not engaged in SGA, the analysis proceeds to the second step. Here, the ALJ found that Petitioner had not engaged in SGA since January 9, 2009, the application date. (AR 16).
The second step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that is severe and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” within the meaning of the Social Security Act if it significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). An impairment or combination of impairments is “not severe” when medical and other evidence establish only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521, 416.921. If the claimant does not have a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, disability benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Here, the ALJ found that Petitioner had the following severe impairments: “multilevel cervical degenerative disk disease with facet arthrosis, status post disectomy and fusion and cervical laminectomy at C3 & C4 with autograft; and central cord syndrome.” (AR 16).
The third step requires the ALJ to determine the medical severity of any impairments; that is, whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the answer is yes, the claimant is considered disabled under the Social Security Act and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the claimant’s impairments neither meet nor equal one of the listed impairments, the claimant’s case cannot be resolved at step three and the evaluation proceeds to step four. Id. Here, the ALJ concluded that Petitioner does not have an impairment (or combination of impairments) that meets or medically equals a listed impairment (AR 16).
The fourth step of the evaluation process requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity is sufficient for the claimant to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). An individual’s residual functional capacity is her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. Likewise, an individual’s past relevant work is work performed within the last 15 years or 15 years prior to the date that disability must be established; also, the work must have lasted long enough for the claimant to learn to do the job and be engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(b), 404.1565, 416.960(b), 416.965. Here, the ALJ ruled that Petitioner has the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c). The ALJ also determined that Petitioner could perform his past relevant work as a janitor, certified nurse’s assistant, home health aide, and groundskeeper. The ALJ determined that this work does not require performance of work-related activities precluded by Petitioner’s residual functional capacity. (AR 21).
In the fifth and final step, if it has been established that a claimant can no longer perform past relevant work because of his impairments, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant retains the ability to do alternate work and to demonstrate that such alternate work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); see also Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1993). If the claimant is able to do other work, he is not disabled; if the claimant is not able to do other work and meets the duration requirement, he is disabled. Because the ALJ found Petitioner capable of performing past relevant work, he did not have to proceed to step five. However, the ALJ did found that even if Petitioner was restricted to less than a full range of light work, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the regional and national economies, of cleaner I and electronics assembler, that Petitioner could perform. (AR 21).
B. Analysis
1. Petitioner Credibility
Petitioner contends that the ALJ gave insufficient reasons for rejecting his testimony. In his opinion, the ALJ stated 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.” The ALJ further stated that the objective evidence established that Petitioner is capable of performing basic work activities. The ALJ remarked that Petitioner did not follow through with physical therapy as recommended by his treating physician, Dr. Dirks, because he could not afford it and that he only medicates his pain with over-the-counter medications every other day. The ALJ also noted that while the claimant described daily activities which are fairly limited, great weight was not given to this evidence because the “allegedly limited daily activities cannot be objectively verified with any reasonable degree of certainty” and because of the difficulty attributing “that degree of limitation to the claimant’s medical condition, as opposed to other reasons, in view of the relatively weak medical evidence . . .” The ALJ further concluded:
The claimant’s statements on the function report are not entirely credible. He said he can perform his personal care slowly. He is able to prepare simple meals. He claims he is fairly limited in several areas as a result of paralysis. He claimed he cannot do any housework, he cannot drive, and he cannot handle money. He also stated that he is under doctor’s orders to not go outside. There is no evidence in the record of continued paralysis in the upper extremities. The treatment notes show the claimant’s strength in his upper extremities has continued to improve (at least 4/5 strength). Furthermore, there is no reference in the treatment record to any doctor directing the claimant to not go outside. The claimant testified he has problems gripping and grasping items with his hands; however, after the first surgery, it is noted to have improved (4/5 strength after first surgery). Furthermore, this testimony is not consistent with the claimant’s testimony that he is able to fish, which shows he is able to hold on to a fishing pole and reel in a fishing line, which requires an ability to grip and grasp items.
The claimant testified he has difficult reaching overhead, but there is no indication in the treatment notes of any limitations in this area. There are no range of motion tests and no significant signs of weakness. The claimant asserted he has problems with stairs; however, he also said he has several flights of stairs at home to climb and descend. This suggests the claimant is able to climb and descend stairs with little difficulty. The bulk of treatment notes do not support the claimant’s assertions regarding his limitations in walking and standing. It has been noted the claimant has no difficult with ambulation. Finally, the claimant stated he can only sit for no more than ½ hour; yet, the hearing lasted longer than ½ hour and the claimant showed no signs of needing to change positions.
(AR 19-20).
The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities. The ALJ’s findings must be supported by specific, cogent reasons. If a claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain based solely on lack of medical evidence. Unless there is affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting pain testimony. The reasons an ALJ gives for rejecting a claimant’s testimony must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
In evaluating credibility, the ALJ may engage in ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, including consideration of a claimant’s reputation for truthfulness and inconsistencies in claimant’s testimony, or between claimant’s testimony and conduct, as well as claimant’s daily activities, claimant’s work record and testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the nature, severity and effect of the symptoms of which claimant complains. Also, the ALJ may consider: location, duration and frequency of symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate those symptoms; amount and side effects of medications; and treatment measures taken by claimant to alleviate those symptoms. See Soc. Sec. Ruling (SSR) 96-7p. Here, the ALJ focused on inconsistencies in claimant’s testimony as well as between his claimed limitations and the support for those limitations in the medical record. The ALJ noted that while Petitioner claimed to have great difficulty grasping and gripping many everyday items, he also testified that he would go fishing which would be inconsistent with the claimed limitations.1 Additionally, the ALJ remarked that although Petitioner stated he could not sit for longer than 20 to 30 minutes at a time, the hearing lasted longer than 30 minutes and he did not appear to need to switch positions. The ALJ also observed that Petitioner testified to extreme limitations in his upper extremities as well as with walking and standing, yet the medical evidence demonstrated improved strength (at least 4/5) in his upper extremities after his surgeries and indicated no problems with ambulation. While lack of medical evidence cannot be the sole reason for rejecting pain testimony, “medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” The ALJ also focused on treatment measures taken by Petitioner, which he testified was to use over-the-counter pain medication every other day. Over-the-counter pain medication is an example of “evidence of `conservative treatment’” that “is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment.”
Where, as here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s credibility finding, the Court will not engage in second-guessing. In other words, if the evidence can support either outcome, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. The Court reviews the administrative record as a whole to determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. The issue is not whether the Court agrees with the ALJ’s credibility assessment, but whether the assessment is supported by the requisite findings and record evidence. Here, it is, and the Court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the ALJ.
2. Treating Physician’s Opinion
Petitioner argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Dirks, by relying on the opinion of a non-examining physician.
Ninth Circuit case law distinguishes among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (nonexamining physicians). Generally, more weight is accorded to the opinion of a treating source than to nontreating physicians. In turn, an examining physician’s opinion is entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a nonexamining physician. If the treating physician’s opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for “clear and convincing” reasons. If the treating doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the Commissioner may not reject the treating physician’s opinion without providing “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record for doing so.
An ALJ is not required to accept an opinion of a treating physician if it is conclusory and not supported by clinical findings. Additionally, an ALJ is not bound to a physician’s opinion of a petitioner’s physical condition or the ultimate issue of disability. If the record as a whole does not support the physician’s opinion, the ALJ may reject that opinion. Items in the record that may not support the physician’s opinion include clinical findings from examinations, conflicting medical opinions, conflicting physician’s treatment notes, and the claimant’s daily activities.
The ALJ provides a detailed description of Petitioner’s medical records, which come from his treating surgeon, Dr. Dirks. On January 27, 2009, following Petitioner’s second surgery, Dr. Dirks stated that Petitioner was not released back to work and the issue should be reevaluated in three months. On April 9, 2009, he opined that Petitioner was “disabled and unable to return to work at this stage.” On November 3, 2009, the last treatment note from Dr. Dirks, he stated that he supported Petitioner in his quest for obtaining Social Security disability as he did “not believe he will be able to have gainful employment at this time.” (AR 304).
In regard to Dr. Dirks’ opinions as to disability, the ALJ gave his opinion little weight and stated:
Dr. Dirks provides no range of motion testing in the treatment notes. His treatment notes show the claimant’s condition has improved after both surgeries. Muscle strength testing shows the claimant has at least 4/5 strength in the upper extremities. There is no evidence of ongoing paralysis in the upper extremities. Although the doctor stated the claimant is `disabled,’ it is not clear that the doctor was familiar with the definition of `disability’ contained in the Social Security Act and regulations. The possibility always exists that a doctor may express an opinion in an effort to assist a patient with whom he or she sympathizes for one reason or another. Another reality which should be mentioned is that patients can be quite insistent and demanding in seeking supportive notes or reports from their physicians, who might provide such a note in order to satisfy their patient’s requests and avoid unnecessary doctor/patient tension. While it is difficult to confirm the presence of such motives, they are more likely in situations where the opinion in question departs substantially from the rest of the evidence of record, as in the current case.
While a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to great weight, the ALJ is not bound by his or her opinion on the ultimate issue of disability. This is especially true if the opinion is conclusory and not supported by the clinical findings. The ALJ does not discount the medical records from Dr. Dirks, instead he provides a thorough discussion of Petitioner’s medical history. However, the ALJ found that Dr. Dirks’ opinion of disability departed “substantially” from the rest of the evidence in the record and conflicted with his own treatment notes and the clinical findings. Under the Social Security regulations, the ALJ is not required to follow a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(e)(1). Additionally, these opinions of treating physicians are not entitled to any special significance. Id. at § 416.927(e)(3). Lastly, while, as Petitioner contends, the ALJ did give significance to the Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment completed by a non-examining physician, this assessment was not used as a basis for rejecting Dr. Dirks’ opinion on disability. Instead, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for giving Dr. Dirks’ opinion regarding disability little weight.
3. Residual Functional Capacity Finding
Petitioner contends there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s finding of a medium residual functional capacity. A claimant’s residual functional capacity is the most he can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). An ALJ considers all relevant evidence in the record when making this determination. Id. The regulations define “medium work” as “lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c).
In finding that the Petitioner could perform the full range of medium work, the ALJ relied, in part, on the opinions of two non-examining state agency physicians who reviewed the medical record and opined that Petitioner could perform medium work. (AR 286-98, 299). Petitioner contends that the ALJ should not rely on these opinions because they were made without the November 3, 2009 treatment note of Dr. Dirks which stated that he “continued to show signs and symptoms of central cord syndrome” and that he “continues to exhibit poor walking ability and poor strength.” (AR 304). Although the ALJ gave “significant weight” to the assessment of the state agency physician, Dr. Dickey, this was not the only evidence he relied upon in forming his assessment. The ALJ also evaluated the medical evidence from Dr. Dirks, including this November 3, 2009 treatment note, and Petitioner’s own testimony. See Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding the ALJ was not required to incorporate opinion evidence which was permissibly discounted). The ALJ commented on the November 3, 2009 treatment note and remarked that other treatment notes found “claimant’s strength was measured as at least 4/5 and it has been noted the claimant’s ambulation is good.” (AR 19). The ALJ has considered all the relevant evidence in making his residual functional capacity finding and it is supported by substantial evidence.
Although it was not raised by Petitioner, when evaluating the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding, the Court sua sponte examined whether the ALJ should have further developed the record in this case. Under Ninth Circuit law, an ALJ has “an independent duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.” The ALJ must supplement the record if there is “ambiguous evidence” or the ALJ has found “the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence.” When reviewing this, the Court determined that the evidence was in conflict, rather than ambiguous and the ALJ’s duty to develop the record was not invoked. Even though this is a case in which the Court has some misgivings about the result and those misgivings may have caused the Court to decide the case differently, the ALJ is entitled to deference when the decision is supported by substantial evidence. In other words, if the evidence can support either outcome, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.
4. Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.06
Petitioner contends that under Medical Vocational Guideline 202.06, he should be found disabled. Medical Vocational Guideline 202.06 directs a finding of disability where a claimant is limited to light work, is of advance age (55 and older), has a high school education and does not have transferrable skills. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.06.
In his decision, after finding that Petitioner was capable of performing past relevant work, thus directing a finding of not disabled, the ALJ went on to state that even if claimant was “restricted to less than a full range of light work . . . the vocational expert testified [he] could perform the jobs of cleaner I and electronics assembler, jobs which exist in significant numbers in the regional and national economy.”
Petitioner is correct that under Ninth Circuit law, a vocational expert’s testimony cannot “supplant or override a disability conclusion dictated by the Guidelines.” The Commissioner contends that any error made by the ALJ in this regard is “harmless error.”
The Ninth Circuit has affirmed “under the rubric of harmless error where the mistake was nonprejudicial to the claimant or irrelevant to the ALJ’s ultimate disability conclusion.” For example, in Matthews v. Shalala, the ALJ failed to include one of claimant’s limitations in his hypothetical to the vocational expert. However, because the claimant had failed, at step four, to show that he could not return to his past work, the burden remained on him and the ALJ was not required to rely on the vocational expert’s testimony to show that the claimant could perform other kinds of work. Id. The court concluded: “The vocational expert’s testimony was thus useful, but not required . . . Any error would have been harmless.” Id.
Similarly, in this case, the ALJ concluded that Petitioner had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of medium work (AR 16) and thus could perform his past relevant work. The ALJ then found, alternatively, that even if Petitioner was limited to light work, significant jobs that he could perform existed in the national economy. This was an unnecessary step that the ALJ was not required to perform having found Petitioner capable of performing past relevant work and not disabled at step four. Accordingly, if an error was made by the ALJ in not following the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, it was harmless.
IV. CONCLUSION
The ALJ is the fact-finder and is solely responsible for weighing and drawing inferences from facts and determining credibility. If the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which is the ALJ’s, a reviewing court may not substitute its interpretation for that of the ALJ.
The evidence upon which the ALJ relied can reasonably and rationally support his well-formed conclusions, despite the fact that such evidence may be susceptible to a different interpretation. Indeed, in this case, this Court might well have found differently if was to decide the case de novo. However, such a statement is drawn from a cold record, and it is not this Court’s role to alter the ALJ’s decision without some appropriate basis under the law for doing so, consistent with its role as a reviewing court only. Here, the ALJ’s decision as to Petitioner’s alleged disability is based on proper legal standards and supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Commissioner’s determination that Petitioner is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is based upon an application of proper legal standards.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.
V. ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s Petitioner for Review (Dkt. 1) is DENIED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice.

Social Security Can Ignore Your Treating MD's Opinion, If The Gov't Non-treating MD Agrees With Other Evidence.

OSMORE v. ASTRUE

COULETTE OSMORE v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

No. 11-35212.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed March 20, 2012.

Before: PAEZ and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges, and GWIN, District Judge.***

MEMORANDUM

Coulette Osmore appeals the district court’s judgment reversing the Commissioner’s final decision that Osmore was not disabled within the meaning of Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1383c(a)(3), and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings. With her appeal, Osmore seeks an order that, on remand, the Adminstrative Law Judge (ALJ) must complete an entirely new evaluation of Osmore’s Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits applications. We affirm.

Evaluation of the Medical Evidence

The Commissioner says that, on remand, he will both consider the effects of Osmore’s mental impairments and allow Osmore to argue that medication side effects limit her residual functional capacity. Accordingly, Osmore’s claim that the ALJ improperly disregarded evidence of Osmore’s depression and medication side effects is moot. (“An appeal is moot if there exists no `present controversy as to which effect relief can be granted.’” On remand, the ALJ must consider Osmore’s mental impairments and medication side effects.

The ALJ did not err by failing to discuss specifically Osmore’s MRI and CT scan results. “[I]n interpreting the evidence and developing the record, the ALJ does not need to discuss every piece of evidence.“Here, Osmore’s MRI results were consistent with her CT scan results. Both revealed that Osmore has the severe impairment spondylolisthesis. The ALJ properly considered Osmore’s medical records—including records that evaluated her MRI and CT scan—in evaluating Osmore’s impairments.

The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Tim Truschel’s (a treating physician) opinion: other treating and non-treating physicians’ opinions, along with Osmore’s treatment records, contradicted Dr. Truschel’s opinion. A non-examining physician’s opinion may constitute substantial evidence to disregard the opinion of an examining physician if it is consistent with other independent evidence in the record and the ALJ does not rely on the non-examining physician’s report alone.

The ALJ did not err in evaluating the medical records from Osmore’s twelve other physicians. The ALJ noted Osmore’s history of back pain, cited several of Osmore’s physicians’ medical opinions and treatment records, and appropriately developed and considered the record.

Evaluation of Other Evidence

The ALJ did not err in discrediting Osmore’s symptom testimony based on inconsistencies with 1) the objective medical evidence and 2) Osmore’s daily activities. (Inconsistencies with clinical observations can “satisfy the requirement of a clear and convincing reason for discrediting a claimant’s testimony.”); (The ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony when inconsistent with the claimant’s daily activities and contrary to the medical evidence.).

The ALJ did not err in failing to consider Osmore’s lay-witness evidence. In 2004, Osmore’s husband and sister prepared reports for Osmore’s prior Social Security benefits applications; the present application concerns disability beginning March 2005. Accordingly, these out-of-date lay-witness reports are not probative evidence of Osmore’s 2005 disability status. (“[T]he evidence which the Secretary ignored was neither significant nor probative.”). On remand, however, Osmore may seek leave to submit additional evidence from lay witnesses.

Other Claims of Error

The district court explained that because “the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical evidence in the record concerning [Osmore's] mental impairments and limitations,” the ALJ also erred “in assessing [Osmore's] residual functional capacity.” In its judgment reversing and remanding, the district court ordered the ALJ to make a new determination of Osmore’s residual functional capacity and of Osmore’s ability to perform past relevant and current work. Accordingly, Osmore’s remaining allegations of error—regarding the ALJ’s determination of Osmore’s residual functional capacity and ability to perform past relevant and current work—are also moot. See W. Coast Seafood, 643 F.3d at 704.

AFFIRMED.

Babies Born After Daddy Dies Not Eligible To Collect Daddy's Social Security Benefits.

WHO SAID "YOU CANNOT TAKE IT WITH YOU"?
The Supreme Court heard the case of Astrue v. Capato on March 19th to determine if a child conceived after the death of one of its parents is entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act. About 100 such cases are pending before the Social Security Administration (SSA).
http://www.amazon.com/SocialNsecurity-ebook/dp/B006VOQIKK
Robert Capato, who knew he was dying of terminal illness, froze his sperm so that his wife, Karen, could have more children after he died. 18 months later, Karen gave birth to twins after having in vitro fertilization. Robert and Karen Capato’s twins were born in 2003 — 18 months after Robert Capato’s death. Karen Capato's application for survivor benefits on behalf of the twins was rejected by the Social Security Administration, which said that for them to qualify, Robert Capato needed to be alive during their conception. A federal judge agreed, saying they had to qualify as Capato's children before his death or qualify under state inheritance law as children who could legally inherit.

And in its first review of “posthumous conception,” the ­Supreme Court on 19 March struggled to align modern reproductive techniques to a federal law written in 1939.



The major issue that emerged in arguments in this case was the definition of a child and familial linkage according to the Social Security Act. There is no doubt to the court that this was his child, but according to the current law, it appears as if the child’s conception and birth after the death of the father would end the child entitlement to Social Security benefits.

Lawyers for Capato argued that children of a parent should be covered by the Social Security Act regardless their time of birth.

Lawyers for the Social Security administration, as well as a few of the justices, seemed to be concerned with the implications of this case if found in favor of Capato. For instance, if there were loose paperwork around sperm donation centers, it could lead to multiple cases of children seeking Social Security benefits who would otherwise not be entitled to any.



This U.S. Supreme Court case is the first case testing whether children conceived through in vitro fertilization after the death of a parent are eligible for Social Security survivors benefits.

The case began in 2001 when Robert Capato was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Before beginning treatments, he deposited sperm at a fertility clinic, and after he died, his wife Karen carried out the couple's plan to conceive using Robert's sperm.

In 2003, she gave birth to twins and filed for survivors benefits for the children based on her late husband's social security taxes. But the Social Security Administration denied the claim, contending that because the twins could not inherit under Florida state law, where the couple lived, the children were ineligible for survivors benefits.

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia disagreed and Reversed the decision, saying the 1939 Social Security Act confers benefits on all biological offspring of a married couple.

The Supreme Court's eventual decision in the case will have an immediate effect beyond the Capato family. More than 100 similar cases are currently pending before the Social Security Administration.

"Increasingly, members of the military — male members of the military before deployment — are freezing their sperm in case something happens and they don't come back," says Karen Capato's lawyer, Charles Rothfeld.

The Justices wrestled with how to interpret a law written in 1939 and how to apply it to modern technology never imagined back then.

The government's lawyer, Eric Miller, contended that since 1940, the Social Security Administration determined a child's eligibility for survivors benefits based on whether that child can inherit under state law.

Justice Samuel Alito noted that the Congress that enacted this law in 1939 "never had an inkling about the situation that has arisen in this case ... just as they had no inkling that any state would go off and take away the [inheritance rights] of children born to married people."

Justice Elena Kagan called the government's reading of the law "bizarre" in view of the fact that another section of the statute does not apply state inheritance law to stepchildren, grandchildren and even step-grandchildren when determining survivors benefits.

But that was about all the sympathy the Capatos got. Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy both raised an issue not before the court — whether a child conceived in vitro can be properly called a survivor since the child never lived with or was dependent on the deceased.

And when the Capatos lawyer rose to make his argument, he got pounded.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether Capato's in vitro children would still qualify for survivors benefits if she had remarried. "A situation like that is what is making me uncomfortable because I don't see the words 'biological' in the statute" or the word "'marriage' ... within the definition of 'child,'" she said.

Rothfeld replied that when Congress enacted the Social Security Act in 1939, more than 95 percent of the children in the United States were the offspring of married parents, so when Congress said a child is a child, "it would have had in mind the paradigm of the time."

Justice Kagan asked whether Rothfeld could point to any other statutes around that time which supported the notion that when people said child, they meant child within a legal marriage.

Rothfeld said it was so clear back then that there was no need to define it further.

Justice Sotomayor asked if the child of an unmarried mother is excluded from automatic coverage.

Rothfeld responded that under the statute as written, "that's correct." After all, Rothfeld argued, in 1939 there was no way to be scientifically certain who the father of a child was. Marriage was a proxy for that.

But at the time this statute was written, "Wasn't it also understood that the marriage ends when a parent dies?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked.

Justice Stephen Breyer added that if the court ruled in Capato's favor, "I don't see how you're going to save us from even worse problems." Breyer said that the in vitro laws in every state are a very complicated subject and wondered whether the father could "just write a note and say this is my child, even if it's conceived later ...."

Rothfeld replied that Robert Capato did in fact write such a note, but under state law, it wasn't enough.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that under the court's precedents, if a law is ambiguous, it defers to the agency's interpretation and the Capatos would lose. Is there any reason, he inquired, that we shouldn't conclude, "based on the last hour" of argument, that this law is at least ambiguous?

"It's a mess," added Justice Kagan.

Lawyer Rothfeld responded: "The problem is that we're dealing with new technologies that Congress ... wasn't anticipating."

It was a tough slog through the details of a law that was written at a time when, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, “they never had any inkling about the situation that has arisen in this case.”

The Capatos married in 1999, and shortly thereafter he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Because they feared that his treatments might leave him sterile, Robert Capato began depositing sperm at a sperm bank in Florida.

He rallied at one point, and the couple had a naturally conceived son in 2001. But as his condition worsened, the Capatos began to talk about in vitro fertilization to give their son siblings. They signed a notarized statement that any children “born to us, who were conceived by the use of our embryos” shall in all aspects be their children and entitled to their property.

But the provision was not included in Robert Capato’s will at his death in March 2002.

After the twins were born, Karen Capato applied for Social Security survivor benefits. The Capatos’ naturally conceived son received the benefits; the twins did not. The Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) said the 1939 federal law looked to state laws to determine whether the benefit seeker is eligible to inherit property, and under Florida law, the twins were not eligible.

An appeals court reversed that decision, saying that the twins only had to meet the definition in another part of the law, which defined an eligible child simply as “the child or legally adopted child of an individual.”

But other appeals courts have found just the opposite, that the state laws are the places to look for determination of eligibility.

Assistant Solicitor General Eric Miller acknowledged that the law was ambiguous, because it seemed to provide two different definitions of a “child.” But he said the Social Security Administration had made the reasonable ­decision to require that a person seeking survivor benefits “must show that he or she would have been able to inherit personal property” under applicable state laws.

Alito seemed most skeptical of the government’s position, saying that perhaps Congress in 1939 did not think there was need to define the meaning of child. “They knew what a child was,” he said.

Charles A. Rothfeld, representing Capato, said the law was clearly meant to cover “the biological child of married parents” and the twins fit that definition.

What about a child born into a marriage but not a biological child, asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She wondered what would be the outcome if Karen Capato remarried but used her deceased husband’s frozen sperm to conceive.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pressed Rothfeld on whether the marriage between the Capatos ended with his death.

Justice Antonin Scalia wondered how children could be “survivors” if they were not conceived before their father’s death.

“What is at issue here is not whether children that have been born through artificial insemination get benefits,” Scalia said. “It’s whether children who are born after the father’s death get benefits.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that the court’s precedents say that when a statute is ambiguous, the courts should defer to the federal agency.

“Is there any reason we shouldn’t conclude based on the last hour that it’s at least ambiguous?” Roberts asked.

“It’s a mess,” piped in Justice Elena Kagan.

“I think the problem is that we’re dealing with new technologies that Congress . . . wasn’t anticipating at the time,” Rothfeld replied.

Karen Capato's application for survivor benefits on behalf of the twins was rejected by the Social Security Administration, which said that for them to qualify, Robert Capato needed to be alive during their conception. One federal judge agreed, saying they had to qualify as Capato's children before his death or qualify under state inheritance law as children who could legally inherit.

It's worth noting that federal law caps the total amount of survivor benefits paid to any family. The Capato twins have three siblings, at least one of whom qualifies for benefits, so the issue there may be more about how the pot is divided than the size of the pot. (For example, if the father's benefit amount is $1500.00 per month, then the children would be eligible to draw a maximum of $1500 per month, for a total benefit of $3000 per month to the family, until the youngest child reaches 18 years. If one child is eligible, then that child draws $1500; but, if 3 children are eligible, then each child draws $500 per month for a total of $1500.)

The case is Social Security Commissioner Astrue v. Karen Capato .

Widow Lost Appeal Of Social Security Denial Of Benefits Because She Had No Lawyer.

PATRICIA ANN MILES v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER.

No. 11-13042, Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed March 15, 2012.

Before BARKETT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Ann Miles appeals, pro se, (that means she did not have an attorney. She tried to do it herself. That is her right, but a person who represents herself, has a fool for a client.) the district court’s order affirming the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her application for widow’s insurance benefits . Miles argues that the Administrative Law Judge‘s (“ALJ”) determination regarding her March 1998 residual functioning capacity (“RFC“) was not supported by substantial evidence.1 More specifically, she contends that the ALJ erred by: (1) not considering the record evidence reflecting three doctors’ opinions that she was unable to work due to severe damage to her back; (2) discounting the opinion of her chiropractor that she was completely disabled; and (3) finding that her testimony was not fully credible.

Our review in this case is limited to the materials contained in the certified administrative record.2 We review the SSA’s legal conclusions de novo, and its factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”. “If the [SSA's] decision is supported by substantial evidence we must affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.”

Under the Social Security Act, the widow of a fully-insured individual is entitled to benefits if she establishes that she is at least 50, but less than 60 years of age, and is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.335(c). Thus, to collect widow’s Social Security benefits, Miles had to prove that she was disabled, as defined under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505. The ALJ found, and the parties did not contest, that the prescribed period within which Miles had to demonstrate her disability ran from March 1, 1991 to March 31, 1998. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(e)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.336(c) (detailing the eligibility period for widow’s Social Security benefits).

The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step evaluation process used to determine whether a claimant is disabled. The evaluation considers each step in turn, asking: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) whether, based on an RFC assessment, the claimant can perform any of her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform, given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.

The ALJ determined that Miles met the first two steps of the SSR’s five-step process. At the third step, however, the ALJ found that Miles’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. Proceeding to the fourth step, the ALJ also found that Miles retained the RFC to perform her past relevant work (PRW), despite her impairment, during the claim period (1991-1998). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), (f). Concluding that Miles had the requisite RFC, the ALJ had no need to proceed to the fifth and final step of the analysis. See id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).



Miles argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s findings relating to her RFC during the prescribed period, and she asserts three specific errors that led to the ALJ’s allegedly erroneous conclusion. First, Miles argues that the ALJ did not consider all the record’s medical evidence, and that he did not accord proper weight to the statements of her treating physicians. Miles is correct that the record contains evidence from a few doctors suggesting that, as early as 2001, she was disabled. But that evidence does not guarantee the success of her claim. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 416.927(e)(1) (clarifying that a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is “disabled” is not dispositive, as that ultimate conclusion is a regulatory determination left to the ALJ). Here the ALJ found “good cause” not to heed those medical opinions, determining that they were without any explanation or basis in clinical findings, and were contradicted by the other record evidence. See Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240-41 (listing these as permissible bases for finding “good cause” to disregard the opinion of a treating physician). Instead, the ALJ relied on the more detailed medical opinions provided by three other examining physicians to find that, prior to April 1, 2003, Miles had the RFC to perform light work, except for repetitive lifting.

Second, Miles argues that the ALJ erred by discounting her chiropractor’s opinion that she was completely disabled. However, an ALJ has no duty to give significant or controlling weight to a chiropractor’s views because, for SSA purposes, a chiropractor is not a “medical source” who can offer medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513, 416.913, 404.1527(a)(2); Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004). Further, as stated above, even a medical source’s statement that a claimant is “unable to work” or “disabled” does not bind the ALJ, who alone makes the ultimate determination as to disability under the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 416.927(e)(1).

Third, Miles disputes that the ALJ’s determination as to her credibility was supported by substantial evidence, where the ALJ found that Miles’s testimony regarding the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms were “not entirely credible prior to April 1, 2003.” The ALJ is permitted to reach a conclusion that differs from the subjective testimony of a claimant. See Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992) (“After considering a claimant’s complaints of pain, the ALJ may reject them as not creditable . . . .”). In making this finding, the ALJ was required to articulate his reasons for discrediting the subjective testimony. See Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995) (“A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.”). The ALJ did so here, concluding that, despite Miles’s testimony to the contrary, the entirety of the record evidence showed that she possessed the ability to perform significant work activities.

The ALJ reviewed all the evidence before him, accorded more weight to some evidence than to other evidence, and explained his reasons for doing so. We therefore conclude that the ALJ’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence, and we will not disturb his decision. See Miles, 84 F.3d at 1400.

AFFIRMED.

Social Security Commissioner Reversed On Appeal.

BAYS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

KENNETH BAYS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

United States District Court.

March 14, 2012.

Kenneth Bays, Plaintiff, represented by Shea A. Fugate, Law Office of Shea Fugate.

Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, represented by John F. Rudy, III, US Attorney’s Office – FLM.


http://www.amazon.com/Judge-London-Steverson/e/B006WQKFJM




Memorandum Opinion & Order

DAVID A. BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended, Title 42 United States Code Section 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner) denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits under the Act.

The record has been reviewed, including a transcript of the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the exhibits filed and the administrative record, and the pleadings and memoranda submitted by the parties in this case. Oral argument has not been requested.

For the reasons that follow, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History



Plaintiff filed for a period of disability, DIB and SSI benefits on January 27, 2008. He alleged an onset of disability (AOD) on November 8, 2006, due to pain in the lower back, right leg, knee, and hip. His application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff requested a hearing, which was held on September 9, 2009, before Administrative Law Judge Marc Mates (hereinafter referred to as “ALJ”). In a decision dated October 16, 2009, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled as defined under the Act through the date of his decision. Plaintiff timely filed a Request for Review of the ALJ’s decision. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request on June 25, 2010. Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review on October 25, 2010. Doc. No. 1.

B. Medical History and Findings Summary

Plaintiff was born on October 13, 1966 and was 40 years old on the alleged disability onset date (AOD) and forty-three years old at the time of the hearing; had graduated from high school. Prior to November 8, 2006, the alleged onset date of disability. Plaintiff had worked as a laborer, as a brick layer, and as a roofer.(PRW).

Plaintiff’s medical history is set forth in detail in the ALJ’s decision. Approximately twenty years prior to the onset date, Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident and suffered (along with other injuries not relevant here) a fracture of the right femoral shaft, necessitating surgery and placement of a fixation rod in his right leg. For many years, Plaintiff did not have pain from this accident, however, around the beginning of 2008, he began to experience pain in the lower back, in the right leg from a cracked rod in the femur from the accident, in the knee, and hip; he also complained of high blood pressure and anxiety. After reviewing Plaintiff’s medical records and Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from complications of an internal orthopedic device (right femur) and spondylolisthesis of L5 upon SI, which were “severe” medically determinable impairments, but not impairments severe enough to meet or medically equal one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4. The ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work which does not involve climbing, although he can engage in all other postural activities, including stooping and crouching, on an occasional basis, with pushing and pulling of the lower extremities is also limited to occasional, and no more than moderate exposure to vibration and hazards. In making this determination, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements regarding his limitations concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment. Based upon Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ determined that he could not perform past relevant work (PRW).. Considering Plaintiff’s vocational profile and RFC, the ALJ applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the grids), 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, and, based on the testimony of the vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy as routing clerk, surveillance system monitor, and grader/sorter. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined in the Act, at any time through the date of the decision.

Plaintiff now asserts five points of error. First, he argues that the ALJ erred by by finding he had the RFC to perform sedentary work contrary to statements by his treating physician. Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in failing to determine that the claimant suffered from the severe impairment of Spina Bifida Occulta. Third, he contends the ALJ erred by improperly applying the pain standard. Fourth, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to consider the side effects of his medications. Fifth, he argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his credibility. All issues are addressed, although not in the order presented by Plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The scope of this Court’s review is limited to determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, , and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. The Commissioner’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla — i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact, and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion.



“If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.” “We may not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner.]” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). The district court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. The court must scrutinize the entire record to determine reasonableness of factual findings).

The ALJ must follow five steps in evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, if a claimant is working at a substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant does not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then he does not have a severe impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if a claimant’s impairments do not prevent his from doing past relevant work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work) prevent his from doing other work that exists in the national economy, then he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

III. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

A. A severe impairment

Plaintiff argues that the medical evidence showed he suffered from a severe impairment resulting from spina bifida occulta because this condition resulted in significant limitations, and the impairment was well-documented. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ did not err because he found a severe impairment in Plaintiff’s lower back , even if it was for lumbar spondylolistheses and not spina bifida occulta, and he continued in the analysis to consider Plaintiff’s impairments in the next step in the evaluation process.

At Step 2 of the five-step evaluation process, the ALJ is called upon to determine whether a claimant’s impairments are severe. By definition, this inquiry is a “threshold” inquiry. It allows only claims based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected. In this Circuit, an impairment is not severe only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience. A claimant need show only that his impairment is not so slight and its effect not so minimal.

There are ample complaints of back pain from Plaintiff in the record. An x-ray of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine on January 25, 2008 revealed an incomplete fusion of the ossification centers of the left transverse process at L1 and an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5; and there was grade 1/2 spondylolistheses of L5/S1 and narrowing of the disc space. An x-ray of the pelvis also indicated an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5 and a fracture intramedullary rod within the femur; however there were no abnormalities in the pelvis or hip. During an exam on February 27, 2008, orthopedic surgeon Jack R. Steel, M.D., diagnosed Plaintiff with spina bifida occulta and complication of an internal orthopedic device in his right femur.



“If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.” “We may not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner.]” The district court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. The court must scrutinize the entire record to determine reasonableness of factual findings.

The ALJ must follow five steps in evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, if a claimant is working at a substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant does not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then he does not have a severe impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if a claimant’s impairments do not prevent his from doing past relevant work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work) prevent his from doing other work that exists in the national economy, then he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

III. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

A. A severe impairment

Plaintiff argues that the medical evidence showed he suffered from a severe impairment resulting from spina bifida occulta because this condition resulted in significant limitations, and the impairment was well-documented. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ did not err because he found a severe impairment in Plaintiff’s lower back, even if it was for lumbar spondylolistheses and not spina bifida occulta, and he continued in the analysis to consider Plaintiff’s impairments in the next step in the evaluation process.

At Step 2 of the five-step evaluation process, the ALJ is called upon to determine whether a claimant’s impairments are severe. By definition, this inquiry is a “threshold” inquiry. It allows only claims based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected. In this Circuit, an impairment is not severe only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience. A claimant need show only that his impairment is not so slight and its effect not so minimal. McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986).

There are ample complaints of back pain from Plaintiff in the record. An x-ray of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine on January 25, 2008 revealed an incomplete fusion of the ossification centers of the left transverse process at L1 and an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5; and there was grade 1/2 spondylolistheses of L5/S1 and narrowing of the disc space. An x-ray of the pelvis also indicated an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5 and a fracture intramedullary rod within the femur; however there were no abnormalities in the pelvis or hip. During an exam on February 27, 2008, orthopedic surgeon Jack R. Steel, M.D., diagnosed Plaintiff with spina bifida occulta and complication of an internal orthopedic device in his right femur.



The finding of any severe impairment, based on either a single impairment or a combination of impairments, is enough to satisfy step two because once an ALJ proceeds beyond step two, he is required to consider the claimant’s entire medical condition, including impairments an ALJ determined were not severe. The ALJ must make specific and well-articulated findings as to the effect of the combination of all of the claimant’s impairments. However, a clear statement that an ALJ considered the combination of impairments constitutes an adequate expression of such findings.



In this case, although the ALJ did not find Plaintiff had a severe impairment of spina bifida occulta — or even mention it separately — the ALJ did find that Plaintiff’s spondylolistheses of L5/S1 of the lumbar spine was severe and caused Plaintiff some limitations (i.e., to sedentary work with postural limitations) from pain in Plaintiff’s lower back. Moreover, although Dr. Steel diagnosed Plaintiff with spina bifida occulta, he did not prescribe any specific restrictions or limitations based on that diagnosis, and instead focused on the broken rod in Plaintiff’s femur that was causing hip pain. Even assuming the ALJ erred when he concluded Plaintiff’s spina bifida occulta was not severe a impairment, that error was harmless because the ALJ progressed to the next step in the five-step evaluation process and considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments in combination — including his lower back restrictions—at later steps in the evaluation process.



B. RFC and the treating physicians’ opinions.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ in determining that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work when Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Velleff, indicated Plaintiff had a more restrictive residual functional capacity, and no other examining physician indicated that the claimant had the residual functional capacity as determined by the ALJ. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ is not confined to simply adopting a treating physician’s opinions and the ALJ properly gave little weight to the limitations opined by Dr. Velleff.

Residual functional capacity is an assessment based on all relevant evidence of a claimant’s remaining ability to do work despite his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). The focus of this assessment is on the doctor’s evaluation of the claimant’s condition and the medical consequences thereof.

While it is true, as the Commissioner argues, that the ALJ determines Plaintiff’s RFC, he must give substantial weight to the opinion, diagnosis and medical evidence of a treating physician unless there is good cause to do otherwise. If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. Where a treating physician has merely made conclusory statements, the ALJ may afford them such weight as is supported by clinical or laboratory findings and other consistent evidence of a claimant’s impairments.

From late January to March 2008, Plaintiff was treated at KDMC Family Care Center for complaints of right knee, hip and back pain. . On February 27, 2008, Dr. Steel reviewed the x-rays and told Plaintiff that “removal of the prominent proximal rod will alleviate the symptoms of discomfort at the lateral hip. Removal of the distal portion of the rod would be difficult since the nail is broken. He is primarily interested in the prominent proximal rod and would feel more secure if the remainder of the rod were left in place. The surgery would be done as an outpatient. He would probably need to use his cane post-op in the left hand for awhile post op.” Dr. Steel discussed the risks and benefits of removing the broken rod from the right femur and Plaintiff was unsure if he wanted to have the rod removed.



On March 5, 2008, James Aphrem, D.O., reviewed Dr. Steel’s report, prescribed pain medication, and referred Plaintiff to pain management. A week later, Plaintiff presented to Thomas K. Velleff, M.D., for complaints of lower back pain, right leg pain, and status-post rod problems in the right leg. Dr. Velleff noted the broken rod needed to be removed; he also prescribed medications, and recommended that Plaintiff follow up with an orthopedic physician for removal of the rod. From April to September 2008, Plaintiff saw Dr. Velleff five more times. At that time, Dr. Velleff prescribed medications, but did not limit Plaintiff in any activities. Eleven months later, on August 19, 2009, Dr. Velleff, filled out a form entitled “Medical Opinion Re: Ability To Do Work-Related Activities (Physical)1” and opined that Plaintiff could lift ten pounds occasionally; lift less than ten pounds frequently; stand and walk less than two hours in an 8-hour day; sit about two hours in an eight hour day; could sit for twenty to thirty minutes before changing positions; stand for twenty to thirty minutes before changing positions; and could never twist, stoop, crouch, climb stairs or climb ladders. Such limitations would limit Plaintiff to less than sedentary work. (VE testified that a hypothetical person with such limitations would not be able to perform any other work).

The ALJ discounted Dr. Velleff’s opinion:

In determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity, little weight has been afforded to the recent treating source opinion from Thomas Velleff, M.D., as it is found to be overly restrictive, inadequately supported, and inconsistent with the weight of the evidence of record as a whole. In the August 2009 assessment, Dr. Velleff indicates that claimant is capable of lifting/carrying ten pounds, but can stand/walk less than two hours and sit about two hours in an eight hour work day. He further provides, among other limitations, that claimant can sit, stand, or walk no more than twenty-to-thirty minutes at a time before changing position; needs an opportunity to shift position at will from sitting or standing/walking; and needs to lie down at unpredictable intervals during a normal work shift. The degree of limitation ascribed by Dr. Velleff appears overly restrictive, and seems to reference only claimant’s complaints of back and hip pain in support. The undersigned accordingly ascribes little weight to Dr. Velleff’s August 2009 assessment.

By contrast, the degree of work-related restriction assessed by the State agency medical consultants appears reasonable and consistent with the weight of the evidence of record as a whole, thus warranting greater weight (Exhibits 10F and 12F). These consultants allowed claimant to lift more weight, but limited standing and/or walking to two hours total in an eight hour work day, essentially limiting claimant to sedentary work. They also ascribed environmental limitations, as reflected in the above residual functional capacity finding.

Claimant’s treatment history is well-documented and supportive of work-related restriction, but the evidence shows that he has received limited treatment overall and improvement is expected with surgical intervention, if elected. . . . Aside from the broken intramedullary rod, studies have shown the fracture to be well-healed (see, e.g., Exhibits 3F, 4F, SF, and 6F). With respect to claimant’s pelvis, studies have shown no evidence of acute or significant abnormality. Claimant was formally referred for pain management in March 2008 (see Exhibit 7F), but there is no documentation that he has pursued more aggressive treatment. There is also no evidence of leg length discrepancy (see Exhibit 6F).

The February 2008 remarks of Dr. Steel have been considered. Dr. Steel indicated that removal of the prominent proximal rod would alleviate claimant’s symptoms of discomfort at the lateral hip; removal of the distal portion of the rod would be difficult because of the broken nail (Exhibit 6F). Dr. Steel did not otherwise render an opinion as to claimant’s work-related capabilities. State agency medical consultant Dr. David Swan indicated, however, that “[r]emoval of the distal broken fragment which apparently was the cause of the pain could be carried out as an outpatient in a relatively minor procedure” (Exhibit 10F, p. 3). With regard to claimant’s back complaints, while a lumbar spine series indicated some spondylolysis and narrowing of the LS/S1 disk space, it otherwise showed all other disk spaces to be well-maintained and there was no evidence of fracture or destructive process (Exhibit SF). Examination of the back showed no tenderness, no muscle spasm, no pain, and normal posture and gait (Exhibit 2F). There are no references of record to significant motor dysfunction, sensory loss, or reflex abnormality, and no indication that claimant has pursued more aggressive treatment for his back complaints to date, which might support a further reduction in claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Prior to treatment in early 2008, claimant seemingly managed his pain with over-the-counter pain medication. Although he alleges current side effects of medication to include drowsiness, a restriction against exposure to work hazards (such as dangerous moving machinery and heights) would seemingly provide enough precaution to address those allegations. As previously discussed, there is no basis within the record to establish additional limitations, and the undersigned is persuaded that the foregoing limitations contain all inferences regarding the claimant’s impairments and the degree of severity thereof which are raised by the objective and credible evidence of record, and that a further degree of work-related restriction is unwarranted.



Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Vellef’s opinion because there was objective medical evidence of Plaintiff’s impairment2. Doc. 16. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Velleff’s opinion is supported by the evidence of record, in that objective testing confirmed that Plaintiff had problems with his hip and the broken rod in his leg. R. 235. As explained in the prior section, Dr. Steel reviewed a CT scan of the right femur and noted that it showed a healed midshaft fracture with a Kuntschner nail in place with the nail protruding from the greater trochanter by about 2-3 inches; “removal of the prominent proximal rod will alleviate the symptoms of discomfort at the lateral hip,” but “[r]emoval of the distal portion of the rod would be difficult since the nail is broken.” The lumbar spine x-ray also indicated an incomplete fusion of the ossification centers of the left transverse process at L1; an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5; Grade ½ spondyloslysis of L5 upon S1; and narrowed disc space at L5-S1. R. 228. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Velleff’s opinion should have been accorded more weight than that of the non-examining physicians or the ALJ, who cannot come to his own conclusions regarding the limitations of Plaintiff by substituting his judgment for that of the medical and vocational experts.

The Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Velleff’s opinion because, significantly, he had not treated or evaluated Plaintiff for almost one year at the time that he completed the “checkbox/fill-in-the-blank” form indicating severe functional restrictions. The Commissioner cites the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Velleff “offered very little support or explanation for the severe limitations opined in this form and because they were “inconsistent with the record as a whole.” R. 19. The Commissioner also argues that, as noted by the ALJ (R. 19), the severe limitations opined by Dr. Velleff were inconsistent with the weight of the record evidence as a whole. The Commissioner also argues that the ALJ properly gave little weight to the limitations opined by Dr. Velleff based on benign physical exam findings, including normal gait, normal muscle bulk/contour/tone, the absence of any lumbar pain/spasm/tenderness, and a negative straight leg raise test , and argues that there is no disc herniation, even though Dr. Velleff indicated that there was on the form he completed.

The ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Velleff’s opinion, and implicit discounting of Dr. Steel’s remarks that the “removal of the distal portion of the rod would be difficult because of the broken nail,” i.e., that it was possible that it would never be removed, was not based on substantial evidence. The ALJ concluded that “[a]side from the broken intramedullary rod, studies have shown the fracture to be well-healed,” and there was no problem with Plaintiff’s pelvis. However, that does not negate the fact that there was objective medical evidence of a condition that Dr. Steel and Dr. Velleff opined was causing Plaintiff significant pain to warrant the suggested surgery. Plaintiff testified that Dr. Steel told him that surgery possibly would help.

He told Plaintiff he could do surgery on the femur and take the top of it out, but “more than likely it would shatter the bone” so he would have to go in and replace the whole femur.” Dr. Steel told Plaintiff that surgery on the top part “might help with a little bit of” the hip pain but “no guarantee,” and would not affect the back pain. R. 39. Dr. Steel said that the surgery to replace the whole femur would cost $50,000; the more simple operation just to replace the top broken piece (with no guarantee of success) would cost $5,000. Plaintiff could not afford even the less expensive surgery. (“While a controllable medical condition is generally not disabling, if the claimant cannot afford the treatment and can find no way to obtain it, poverty may excuse the non-compliance.”). The ALJ failed to even comment on Plaintiff’s inability to afford the surgery that was the central underpinning to the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff failed to “pursue more aggressive treatment.” The ALJ also discounts the severity of the broken rod in Plaintiff’s femur because “there is also no evidence of leg length discrepancy” (citing Ex. 6F – R. 235-36) even though no physician cited that as evidence Plaintiff was not impaired or limited. The ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. To the extent there is some question about Dr. Velleff’s opinion because he has “discipline on file” with the State of Florida , the ALJ may order a consultative examination with a different physician, such as an orthopedic surgeon without a problematic record, on remand.

To the extent Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in stating Plaintiff’s restrictions concerning exposure to vibration and hazards, the Commissioner does not dispute that the ALJ’s RFC determination did not match “verbatim” those opined by the state agency physicians , but argues any discrepancy was harmless error because the operative hypothetical to the VE accurately described the limitation as “avoiding moderate exposure to vibration and hazards.” The Court need not reach this issue, but on remand the ALJ will consider the appropriate restriction for exposure to vibration and hazards.

C. Pain and credibility.



Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in evaluating his leg and hip pain and by finding his subjective complaints credible only to the extent they are not inconsistent with the RFC as determined by the ALJ. The Commissioner again argues that benign examination findings in Plaintiff’s lower back and the availability of surgery to fix the pain in Plaintiff’s leg/hip negate his statements regarding limitations.

Pain is a non-exertional impairment. The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about his symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1528. In determining whether the medical signs and laboratory findings show medical impairments which reasonably could be expected to produce the pain alleged, the ALJ must apply the Eleventh Circuit’s three-part “pain standard”:

The pain standard requires (1) evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (2) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition or (3) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged pain.

Pain alone can be disabling, even when its existence is unsupported by objective evidence, although an individual’s statement as to pain is not, by itself, conclusive of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A).

The ALJ did not refer to the Eleventh Circuit’s pain standard since Plaintiff’s case was handled in the West Virginia area (where he first filed it); however, the ALJ did cited the applicable regulations and Social Security Rulings. The ALJ discussed in pertinent part Plaintiff’s hip and femur issues without really discounting their severity, except to the extent Dr. Steel had recommended surgery and Plaintiff did not pursue the surgery:

The evidence clearly supports that claimant has limitations stemming from his musculoskeletal and orthopedic difficulties; however, the evidence of record fails to support the degree of severity and/or functional limitation described by claimant-i.e., disabling impairment. The evidence of record supports that claimant has severe impairments limiting him to a reduced range of sedentary work, most notably, as a result of standing/walking limitations of no more than two hours out of an eight-hour work day.

As discussed above, claimant sustained injuries in a 1987 motorcycle accident. Most notably, he sustained a compound midshaft fracture of the right femur with involvement of the right knee (Exhibit IF). At the time, he required emergent internal fixation and repair of the extensor laceration of the right knee and closed reduction and pinning of the distal radial fracture. The evidence indicates that he recovered satisfactorily. But, in February 2008, Jack Steel, M.D., of the Scott Orthopedic Center, noted claimant’s increased right hip problems related to a complication of the internal orthopedic device (Exhibit 6F). Dr. Steel noted that diagnostic studies showed a healed right midshaft fracture but a nail broken within the bone just proximal to the lesser trochanter. Dr. Steel recommended surgery, and told claimant that removal of the prominent proximal rod could alleviate his lateral hip discomfort. (Removal of the distal portion of the rod, however, would be difficult because of the broken nail.) On physical examination, Dr. Steel observed palpable tenderness of the right hip from the superior aspect of the greater trochanter extending into the buttock, and pain on internal and external rotation.



In addition, the record includes diagnostic studies suggesting grade 1 to 2 spondylolisthesis of L5 upon S1 and a narrowed LS/S1 disk space (Exhibit SF). A January 2008 progress note reflects claimant’s report of back pain, but no leg pain or muscle weakness (Exhibit 2F). On physical examination, he had no tenderness to palpation of the lumbosacral spine, no pain, no muscle spasm, negative straight leg raising tests, and normal posture and gait. Accordingly, Maria Sy, M.D., recommended NSAIDs, heat, and physical therapy as needed. In light of these findings, partial credibility is afforded to claimant’s subjective reports of pain and limitation to the extent consistent with the residual functional capacity described above. However, for reasons set forth below, the evidence supports a finding that despite some impairment and residual limitation, claimant retains the ability to engage in a reduced range of work activity.



Where an ALJ decides not to credit a claimant’s testimony about pain, the ALJ must articulate specific and adequate reasons for doing so, or the record must be obvious as to the credibility finding. A reviewing court will not disturb a clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record.

As explained above, the ALJ’s findings regarding limitations from Plaintiff’s femur/hip impairment was not based on substantial evidence. Similarly, the ALJ’s discounting of Plaintiff’s credibility as to his hip pain due to the broken rod in his femur, and his inability to afford the surgery to repair it, was not based on substantial evidence. On remand, the ALJ will properly apply the Eleventh Circuit pain standard in deciding Plaintiff’s credibility regarding the non-exertional impairment of pain.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment consistent with this opinion and, thereafter, to close the file.

DONE and ORDERED.