Filed: Jan. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 1 of 16 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-10713 _ D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01342-PAZ MICHELLE ZUBA-INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (January 26, 2015) Before MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE, * District Judge. * Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, U
Summary: Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 1 of 16 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-10713 _ D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01342-PAZ MICHELLE ZUBA-INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (January 26, 2015) Before MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE, * District Judge. * Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, Un..
More
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 1 of 16
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10713
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01342-PAZ
MICHELLE ZUBA-INGRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 26, 2015)
Before MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE, ∗ District
Judge.
∗
Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida,
sitting by designation.
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 2 of 16
PER CURIAM:
Michelle Zuba-Ingram appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the
denial of her application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and
supplemental security income by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). 1
We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In August 2009, Zuba-Ingram filed applications for a period of disability,
disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income, under Titles II and
XVI of the Social Security Act. Her applications were denied initially, but Zuba-
Ingram was granted a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). In a
pre-hearing brief, Zuba-Ingram contended she suffered from severe post-traumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”), depression, anxiety with panic disorder, and
agoraphobia. She asserted an alleged onset date of June 4, 2009. She further
alleged she had been physically assaulted while serving in the military, and had
also been abused as a child.
During her October 2010 hearing, Zuba-Ingram testified she was 47, had
attained one master’s degree, and was close to obtaining a second. She had three
children, ages 25, 17, and 11. She previously had worked as a middle-school
1
The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge.
2
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 3 of 16
teacher but left that job in 2007, because regularly occurring fights at the school
caused her to experience flashbacks of “stuff that had happened to [her].” Zuba-
Ingram also had worked nights at a hardware store for approximately six months in
2008, but had been unable to adjust to the late hours. During that time, she also
had experienced flashbacks, migraine headaches, and panic attacks. She had taken
several medications that occasionally caused her to feel dizzy and to be unable to
focus.
Zuba-Ingram testified she was seeing a therapist at least once each week and
a social worker several times per month. She was being treated by a United States
Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) psychiatrist approximately once every five
weeks. The ALJ asked Zuba-Ingram whether she could work in a job requiring no
interactions with others, such as in landscaping. She responded she would be very
anxious about being on others’ property and speaking with them.
During examination by Zuba-Ingram’s attorney, she testified her migraine
headaches typically started without warning but occasionally were preceded by a
“feeling in [her] neck.” She had experienced 4 headaches during the month
preceding her hearing and approximately 20-22 in the prior year. Some months
she experienced no headaches, while at other times she experienced 3 in one week.
She was unsure how long the migraines lasted because of the side effects of
medication she took to treat them.
3
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 4 of 16
The ALJ determined Zuba-Ingram could not perform her past relevant work.
The ALJ asked a vocational expert (“VE”) to identify jobs Zuba-Ingram could
perform for her age, education, and experience, provided (1) she had no exertional
limitations; (2) she needed to avoid unprotected heights, heavy equipment, and
operating machinery; and (3) she could carry out simple, routine, repetitive work
that did not change daily and involved limited interactions with others and no team
coordination. The VE identified three jobs: hand-packager, assembler, and
groundskeeper.
The ALJ asked the VE to identify the maximum number of absences that
would be accommodated without losing one’s job. The VE responded: “Three
times in a month which would be ten to 12 times in a total year. So after five
months of two absences that person would be terminated from employment.”
When asked whether jobs existed for one who could work eight hours per day only
“on an unpredictable basis,” the VE responded that such an individual would be
unemployable.
In support of her application, Zuba-Ingram submitted records related to her
previous disability claim to the VA for her PTSD and migraines. The VA’s
December 1, 2009 report included information resulting from examinations of
Zuba-Ingram by several VA medical professionals. Neurophysiology fellow
Jonathan M. Johnson, M.D., opined Zuba-Ingram had reported “continued
4
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 5 of 16
problems with frequent headaches” attributed to an assault in 1983, during which
an assailant hit Zuba-Ingram numerous times in the head with fists and a night
stick. Since that time, the frequency of the headaches had decreased, and Zuba-
Ingram currently was experiencing an average of approximately 3 headaches every
three to four months. They occurred “in clusters of two or three within a few
weeks of each other and [would] then . . . be absent or rare for a month or two.”
While experiencing the headaches, Zuba-Ingram was “unable to function or
tolerate social interaction and require[ed] sleep in a dark quiet room” until they
subsided. The headaches had been present for years, and no clear change in this
pattern appeared over the previous one to two years. Dr. Johnson’s assessment
was, because of blunt trauma, Zuba-Ingram had developed migraine headaches that
“appear[ed] to be relatively stable but . . . interfere[d] with her ability to function
during acute attacks.”
Amy Connell, M.D., reported Zuba-Ingram had a history of substance abuse
in remission. In addition to the 1983 assault, Dr. Connell also discussed a three-
day-long physical assault in 1982 that had rendered Zuba-Ingram unconscious.
Zuba-Ingram had attributed continuing migraine headaches to the 1983 assault.
Dr. Connell discussed at length Zuba-Ingram’s history of physical abuse and self-
harm, which included two suicide attempts and psychiatric hospitalizations.
5
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 6 of 16
Dr. Connell diagnosed Zuba-Ingram with chronic PTSD, major depressive
disorder, and borderline personality disorder.
Amy Krohn, M.D., a VA staff psychiatrist, stated she had been treating
Zuba-Ingram since October 2007. Dr. Krohn reported Zuba-Ingram suffered from
PTSD resulting from a traumatic physical assault while she was serving in the
military. Dr. Krohn discussed several of Zuba-Ingram’s PTSD symptoms in detail,
noted that she did not suspect malingering, and stated Zuba-Ingram had been
unemployable because of PTSD since June 2009. Dr. Krohn’s letter did not
mention migraine headaches. An April 26, 2010, letter contained similar
information.
Consultative examiner John L. Peggau, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist,
examined Zuba-Ingram on November 16, 2009. Zuba-Ingram reported suffering
from PTSD, anxiety, panic attacks, and depressive episodes. She informed
Dr. Peggau about an incident in the military, when a male officer had locked her in
his room and had physically assaulted her. She reported taking three medications
for migraine headaches. According to Dr. Peggau:
[Zuba-Ingram] said that she estimates monthly migraine
headaches but all of this was very vague and she kept
changing her frequency from monthly to “not in quite a
long while sometimes.” She acted as if she was crying
but there were never any tears. She was extremely labile
and dramatic with a theatrical presentation that had a
6
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 7 of 16
large questionable component of malingering or gross
embellishment and acting.
Dr. Peggau further reported Zuba-Ingram “was lacking in specifics and in
detail when asked direct question[s]. Instead, she would often just go on
discussing other things.” Dr. Peggau diagnosed Zuba-Ingram with anxiety
disorder and personality disorder “with borderline and histrionic features, severe.”
On November 25, 2009, state agency consultant Michele Womontree,
Psy.D., completed a mental Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) assessment for
Zuba-Ingram. Her assessment was Zuba-Ingram had experienced moderate
limitations in various work-related and social-functioning abilities.
Dr. Womontree opined Zuba-Ingram should be engaged in work involving “highly
structured and routinized tasks which need not be simple but should have clear,
unchanging expectations,” and “in a situation where there are not many social
interactions or expectations.” Dr. Womontree did not address Zuba-Ingram’s
headaches.
Based on the accumulated evidence, on December 11, 2009, the VA granted
Zuba-Ingram a “service connection” 2 for PTSD and “major depressive disorder
(also claimed as anxiety and panic attacks),” with an evaluation of 70%, effective
2
A “service connection” refers to a showing that a particular injury or disease resulting in
disability was incurred coincident with, or was aggravated during, military service. 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.303(a).
7
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 8 of 16
June 2008. A service connection also was granted for post-traumatic migraine
headaches related to Zuba-Ingram’s 1983 assault, with an evaluation of 30%,
effective October 2009. The decision explained:
We have assigned an evaluation of 30 percent based on
the VA exam of November 2009 that stated you currently
experience 3 headaches per 3-4 month period and that
your headaches cause you to be unable to function or
tolerate social interaction and require sleep in a dark and
quiet room until they subside. Although your symptoms
do not exactly meet the criteria for a 30 percent
evaluation, based on your overall constellation of
symptoms, we consider your headaches to be
incapacitating and occur once a month on average.
Therefore, the higher evaluation of 30 percent has been
assigned.
A higher evaluation of 50 percent is not warranted unless
there are very frequent, completely prostrating, and
prolonged attacks productive of severe economic
inadaptability.
These evaluations were continued in an August 2010 VA rating decision,
which concluded Zuba-Ingram was unemployable because of PTSD as of
December 28, 2009. As to Zuba-Ingram’s headaches, the 2010 VA decision
explained:
The VA neurological examiner of July 8, 2010,
concurred with the November 23, 2010 3 examiner’s
diagnosis/medical opinion, and stated that your
headaches do not limit you from any sort of work other
3
This date appears to be a typographical error. A VA examiner previously had seen Zuba-
Ingram on November 23, 2009.
8
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 9 of 16
than the fact that you have an occasional absence from
work during headache flares. The core of your individual
unemployability claim vests in your post-traumatic stress
disorder symptoms.
In addition to the evidence preceding the VA’s decision, Zuba-Ingram
submitted subsequent evidence to the ALJ. A February 2010 disability
determination services (“DDS”) summary noted Zuba-Ingram had been treated for
headaches in May 2008. An October 2009 DDS summary had identified
headaches as one of several active problems in August 2009, again without
elaboration.
In a letter dated April 29, 2010, Marianne Geiger, M.D., a psychiatrist Zuba-
Ingram had not seen since 2007, stated:
I have been Michelle Zuba-Ingram’s treating physician
for several years. During that time she has had bouts of
severe depression, self-injurious behavior, and several
incidents of suicidal ideation for which I had to call the
police for transport to a psychiatric facility. She has been
unable to tolerate the demands of staying employed. All
of this, in my opinion, is due to major depression and
PTSD and is related to the severe migraines she
experiences. To date the medications we have tried have
had only partial efficacy. I believe her to be disabled and
unable to perform the duties of any and all employment.
Zuba-Ingram also submitted VA progress notes discussing her medical care
between February and September 2010. These notes contained several references
to severe PTSD, anxiety, depression, flashbacks, and self-harm. They also
contained the scattered references to headaches.
9
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 10 of 16
In a January 10, 2011, decision, the ALJ concluded Zuba-Ingram had not
been disabled since her alleged onset date of June 4, 2009. The ALJ determined
Zuba-Ingram had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset
date and had the following severe impairments: PTSD, anxiety, substance abuse in
remission, and migraine headaches. But Zuba-Ingram did not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that met or equalled a listed impairment. The ALJ
concluded Zuba-Ingram had (1) no restrictions in daily-living activities;
(2) moderate difficulties in social functioning and in concentration, persistence, or
pace; and (3) one extended-duration episode of decompensation.
The ALJ further determined Zuba-Ingram retained a maximum RFC to
perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, subject to the following
nonexertional limitations: (1) the need for simple, routine, repetitive tasks that stay
the same day to day and involve no team coordination and only minimal
interaction with others; and (2) the need to avoid unprotected heights, heavy
equipment, and operating machinery. The ALJ discussed several of the symptoms
alleged by Zuba-Ingram, including her assertion that she experienced migraine
headaches because of a past physical assault. The ALJ concluded Zuba-Ingram’s
medically determinable impairments reasonably could be expected to cause the
alleged symptoms. Zuba-Ingram’s statements concerning the intensity,
persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not credible, to the extent
10
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 11 of 16
they were inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC assessment. While acknowledging
Zuba-Ingram’s history of significant trauma, the ALJ noted her treatment generally
had been successful in reducing or controlling her symptoms.
The ALJ determined Zuba-Ingram’s testimony concerning the limiting
effects of her symptoms, including her allegations of unpredictable migraines 4
times per month, were contradicted by the daily-living and work activities Zuba-
Ingram had engaged in immediately before her alleged onset date and July 2009
hospitalization. The ALJ declined to credit Dr. Geiger’s contrary one-paragraph
April 2010 statement, because Zuba-Ingram had not seen Dr. Geiger since 2007.
Very limited weight also was assigned to the opinions of Dr. Krohn, whose
statement that Zuba-Ingram had been unable to work for some time was
inconsistent with the record. The ALJ accorded substantial weight to the state
agency consultants’ opinions, because they were well-reasoned and consistent with
other evidence.
The ALJ further concluded Zuba-Ingram was unable to perform any past
relevant work. Nevertheless, considering her age, education, work experience, and
RFC, in conjunction with the 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Medical-Vocational Guidelines,
there were significant numbers of jobs in the national economy Zuba-Ingram could
perform. The Appeals Council denied Zuba-Ingram’s request for review in April
2012.
11
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 12 of 16
Zuba-Ingram sought review in district court. She filed a memorandum and
argued the ALJ had erred in evaluating her migraine-headache pain and failed to
provide sufficient reasons for discrediting her complaints. She supported her
testimony concerning her migraine headaches with her medical records. Zuba-
Ingram further argued the ALJ erred by failing to give any weight to the 30%
disability rating assigned by the VA for her headaches.
The magistrate judge affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The magistrate judge
concluded the record contained little objective evidence to support Zuba-Ingram’s
claims regarding the limiting effects of her migraine headaches. The Social
Security regulations endorsed the ALJ’s conclusion he was not bound by the VA’s
disability findings. The ALJ also would have been entitled to reject the VA’s
ratings based solely on his credibility finding. Although the ALJ should have
explained in greater detail the weight he afforded to the VA’s findings, the
magistrate judge determined the error was harmless.
II. DISCUSSION
Zuba-Ingram argues on appeal the ALJ failed to provide sufficient reasons
for discrediting her complaints about pain caused by her migraine headaches. She
contends the ALJ erred by failing to address the frequency, intensity, and duration
12
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 13 of 16
of her headaches in the RFC findings and by failing to include a finding regarding
the severity of her limitations. 4
“In Social Security appeals, we must determine whether the Commissioner’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.”
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is more than a
scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.”
Id. (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). “We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute
our judgment for that of the Commissioner.”
Id. (alteration, citation, and internal
quotation marks omitted). A litigant who offers no substantive argument on an
issue in her initial brief abandons that issue on appeal. Timson v. Sampson,
518
F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
The Commissioner uses a five-step, sequential evaluation process to
determine whether a claimant is disabled. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. The first
three steps ask whether the claimant (1) currently is engaged in substantial gainful
activity and (2) has a severe impairment or combination of impairments (3) that
meet or equal the severity of the specified impairments in the Listings.
Id. The
4
Zuba-Ingram has not argued in this court that the ALJ erred in not according the VA’s
migraine-headache disability rating appropriate weight. Therefore, she has abandoned that
argument on appeal. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004).
13
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 14 of 16
fourth step asks whether, based on the claimant’s RFC assessment, the claimant
can perform any of her past relevant work. Id. The RFC is that which an
individual still is able to do despite the limitations caused by her impairments.
Phillips v. Barnhart,
357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). The ALJ must
consider all of the evidence in the record in determining the claimant’s RFC. See
id. The final step asks whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national
economy the claimant can perform, given her RFC, age, education, and work
experience.
Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.
To establish a disability based on testimony of pain and other symptoms, the
claimant must satisfy two parts of a three-part test by showing “(1) evidence of an
underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence
confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined
medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.”
Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
In weighing the evidence, “credibility determinations are the province of the
ALJ.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). If
the ALJ discredits a claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ “must articulate
explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.”
Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225. A clearly
articulated credibility finding supported by record evidence will not be disturbed
on appeal. Foote v. Chater,
67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
14
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 15 of 16
By failing to state any arguments on appeal in support of any disability
claims Zuba-Ingram may have had based on impairments other than migraine
headaches, she has abandoned this issue. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. She has
not shown the ALJ erred in failing to credit her allegations concerning the limiting
effects regarding her migraine headaches or failed to explain adequately his
decision. Zuba-Ingram testified she had experienced approximately 20-22
migraine headaches in the year preceding her hearing. This testimony was
inconsistent with Dr. Johnson’s December 2009 report, which showed the
frequency of her headaches had decreased over the years, and she was
experiencing an average of approximately 3 headaches every three to four months
in 2009. Zuba-Ingram’s December 2009 VA rating decision similarly reported she
experienced 3 headaches every three to four months. Aside from Dr. Johnson’s
report, the totality of Zuba-Ingram’s medical records contained only scattered,
isolated references to migraine headaches.
The ALJ was entitled to find Zuba-Ingram’s testimony regarding her prior
employment, daily activities, and travels called into question her allegations
concerning the limiting effects of her migraine headaches. She did not indicate
migraine headaches interfered with travelling or daily activities. Her testimony as
to the limiting effects of flashbacks in prior jobs similarly did not refer to migraine
headaches. The ALJ was entitled to assign limited weight to Dr. Geiger’s opinion
15
Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 16 of 16
that Zuba-Ingram was unemployable, because Zuba-Ingram testified she had not
seen Dr. Geiger in approximately two years. She also has not shown the ALJ erred
in his assessment of Dr. Krohn’s letters, because they did not mention migraine
headaches.
Zuba-Ingram’s argument that the ALJ’s RFC assessment inadequately
accounted for her headaches is misplaced. The ALJ’s conclusion as to Zuba-
Ingram’s maximum RFC shows the ALJ determined she had not established
credible RFC limitations regarding her headaches. The factual findings underlying
the VA’s migraine-headache-disability rating, including Zuba-Ingram’s having
experienced 3 headaches every three to four months, were consistent with the
ALJ’s conclusion she could work. Accordingly, we hold that the Commissioner’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.
AFFIRMED.
16
