ABDUL K. KALLON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Billy James Dean brings this action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act ("the Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the final adverse decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). This court finds that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") applied the correct legal standard and that his decision—which has become the decision of the Commissioner—is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court affirms the decision denying benefits.
Dean filed an application for Title II disability insurance benefits on March 9, 2011, (R. 134-35), alleging a disability onset date of May 15, 2005, (R. 134), due to degenerative joint disease in both shoulders, a neck condition, L-4-L-5 spondylosis, bone spurs in both heels, bilateral hearing loss, bilateral tinnitus, sinusitis, sleep apnea, hypertension, residuals of an anal tear, diabetic neuropathy, hyperlipidemia, residual scars with fever from smallpox, major depressive disorder with anxiety, diabetes mellitus type II, carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands, and chronic headaches, (R. 201). Dean was forty-three years old on his alleged onset date and forty-nine years old on his date last insured, (R. 56), had a high-school education, (R. 24), and had past light work as a janitor, medium work as a cook, heavy work as a material handler, and medium work as a truck driver, (R. 51). After the SSA denied his application, both initially on April 21, 2011, (R. 67), and upon reconsideration on July 14, 2011, (R. 77), Dean requested a hearing, (R. 101-05). Dean did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from his alleged onset date through his date last insured, (R. 14).
The ALJ denied Dean's claim on January 7, 2013, (R. 9-30), which became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council refused to grant review on July 3, 2014, (R. 1-5). Dean then filed this action pursuant to section 1631 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). Doc. 1.
The only issues before this court are whether the record contains substantial evidence to sustain the ALJ's decision, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982), and whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, see Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) mandate that the Commissioner's "factual findings are conclusive if supported by `substantial evidence.'" Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). The district court may not reconsider the facts, reevaluate the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner; instead, it must review the final decision as a whole and determine if the decision is "reasonable and supported by substantial evidence." See id. (citing Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)).
Substantial evidence falls somewhere between a scintilla and a preponderance of evidence; "[i]t is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Martin, 849 F.2d at 1529 (quoting Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239) (other citations omitted). If supported by substantial evidence, the court must affirm the Commissioner's factual findings even if the preponderance of the evidence is against the Commissioner's findings. See Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529. While the court acknowledges that judicial review of the ALJ's findings is limited in scope, it notes that the review "does not yield automatic affirmance." Lamb, 847 F.2d at 701.
To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show "the inability 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 twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(I)(A). A physical or mental impairment is "an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrated by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3).
Determination of disability under the Act requires a five step analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). Specifically, the Commissioner must determine in sequence:
McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986). "An affirmative answer to any of the above 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.'" Id. at 1030 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(f)). "Once a finding is made that a claimant cannot return to prior work the burden shifts to the Secretary to show other work the claimant can do." Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
As a preliminary matter, the ALJ determined that Dean last met the insured status requirements of the Act on June 30, 2011, (R. 14). Then, in performing the Five Step sequential analysis, the ALJ initially determined that Dean had not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period from his alleged onset date through his date last insured and therefore met Step One, (R. 14). Next, the ALJ acknowledged that Dean's severe impairments of lumbar degenerative disc disease, bone spurs, in both heels, diabetes, carpal tunnel syndrome, and obesity met Step Two. Id. However, the ALJ concluded that Dean's bilateral shoulder problems, cervical degenerative disc disease, bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, diminished sight, sleep apnea, residuals of small pox, migraine headaches, anxiety, depression, and anger management issues were non-severe impairments, (R. 18). The ALJ then proceeded to the next step and found that, through the date last insured, Dean did not satisfy Step Three since he "did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equals one of the listed impairments," (R. 19). Although the ALJ answered Step Three in the negative, consistent with the law, see McDaniel, 800 F.2d at 1030, the ALJ proceeded to Step Four, where he determined that:
(R. 19). The ALJ then noted that "[t]ransferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocation Rules as a framework supports a finding that [Dean] is `not disabled,' whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills," (R. 24) (citing S.S.R. 82-41 and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2). Lastly, in Step Five, the ALJ considered Dean's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity ("RFC"), and determined, based on the Medical Vocational Guidelines found in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, sections 201.28 and 201.21 and on the testimony of a vocational expert, that "there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that [Dean] could have performed." Id. Because the ALJ answered Step Five in the negative, he determined that Dean was not disabled between the alleged onset date and the date last insured (R. 25).
The court turns now to Dean's contentions that the ALJ erred (1) in his assessment of Dean's mental impairments, doc. 9 at 4-8, and (2) by failing to consider whether he should have assessed Dean as a person approaching advanced age, id. at 8-12. For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and his opinion is supported by substantial evidence.
As an initial matter, the court notes that Dean's primary contention regarding the ALJ's assessment of his mental impairments is that the ALJ erred by concluding that Dean's depression was a non-severe impairment. Id. at 4. This argument is a nonstarter. "Even if the ALJ erred in not indicating whether [Dean's depression] was a severe impairment, the error was harmless because the ALJ concluded that [Dean] had a severe impairment[,] and that finding is all that step two requires." Heatly v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 382 F. App'x 823, 824-25 (11th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added); see also Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added) ("the finding of any severe impairment" is enough to satisfy step two). As the court previously stated, the ALJ found that Dean's lumbar degenerative disc disease, bone spurs, in both heels, diabetes, carpal tunnel syndrome, and obesity were severe impairments that met Step Two. Consequently, the ALJ did not err by concluding that Dean's depression was a non-severe impairment.
More generally, Dean seems to contend that the ALJ erred by failing to conclude that his mental health impairments have rendered him unable to work. This argument fails, however, because substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that Dean's mental impairments were non-severe. First, although Dean points to a handful of medical records that he claims support his contentions regarding the severity of his mental impairments, see doc. 9 at 6-7, he fails to account for the voluminous treatment records
Id. (quoting (R. 320, 346-47, 352, 354, 382, 396, 405, 478, 497, 541, 563, 586, 603, 732, 806, 824, 1194, 1227, 1313, 1429, 1444, 1458, 1477, 1493, 1501)). The ALJ also noted that Dean's counseling records frequently reflected "assigned Global Assessment of Functioning Scale . . . scores between 60 and 70[,] commensurate with predominately mild symptomatology and attendant limitations." Id. (citing (R. 347, 352, 471-72, 487, 799, 814, 830, 836, 1203)). Critically, as the ALJ noted, treating physician D. Shawn Surrat "reported a lack of `any limitations in functioning secondary to [Dean's] mental condition.'" Id. (quoting (R. 322)). Reiterating its earlier explanation of the standard of review in the present matter, the court must affirm the ALJ's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Second, in addition to examining Dean's medical records, the ALJ also assessed the severity of Dean's mental impairments pursuant to the disability regulations for evaluating mental disorders, which are colloquially referred to as the "paragraph B" criteria, (R. 17-19). The SSA has "identified four broad functional areas in which [it] will rate the degree of [a claimant's] functional limitation: Activities of daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence, or pace; and episodes of decompensation." 20 C.F.R. 404.1520a(c)(3). It rates "the degree of limitation in the first three functional areas . . . us[ing] the following five-point scale: None, mild, moderate, marked, and extreme." 20 C.F.R. 404.1520a(c)(4). "If [the SSA] rate[s] the degree of [a claimant's] limitation in the first three functional areas as "none" or "mild" and "none" in the fourth area, [it] will generally conclude that [the claimant's] impairment is not severe . . . ." 20 C.F.R. 404.1520a(d)(1).
The ALJ concluded that Dean had "only mild limitations with activities of daily living, social functioning, concentration, persistence, and pace," which, coupled with the lack of any allegations that Dean suffered from periods of decompensation, supported his conclusion that Dean's mental impairments were not severe, (R. 18). In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ relied on evidence derived from a variety of sources. Chiefly, he noted that Dean "described
Id. (citing (R. 164, 167-173, 177-182, 554, 630, 801)). The ALJ also noted that Dean's wife "averred that her husband's interpersonal skills and ability to handle money had not been impaired by his alleged illness, injuries, or conditions," id. (citing R. 180-81), and that "[d]espite allegedly severe problems with attentiveness and perseverance, [Dean] exhibited no difficulty with the accurate and detailed completion of considerable disability application paperwork, and I observed him to be well acclimated, focused and responsive throughout the hearing, as well as an effective personal and medical historian,"
Dean contends that the ALJ erred in discounting a second PRT analysis performed by George Grubbs, Psy.D., doc. 9 at 5, in which Dr. Grubbs concluded Dean's mental impairments produced a moderate degree of limitation with regard to restriction of activities of daily living, mild difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace, and no difficulties in maintaining social functioning, (R. 1026), presumably because Dr. Grubbs' conclusion that Dean's mental impairments produced a moderate degree of limitation with regard to restriction of activities of daily living would preclude a finding that his mental impairments are non-severe pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 404.1520a(d)(1). However, the ALJ discounted Dr. Grubbs' finding because they were contrary to the significant amount of evidence indicating that Dean participates in a wide variety of activities, which the court described above. An ALJ may reject the opinion of even a treating physician, let alone a non-examining consultant like Dr. Grubbs, if the opinion runs contrary to the weight of the evidence. Johnson v. Barnhart, 138 F. App'x 266, 270 (11th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the opinion of a non-examining physician "is entitled to little weight and taken alone does not constitute substantial evidence to support an administrative decision." Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222, 226 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Broughton v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 960, 962 (11th Cir. 1985)). As such, the ALJ correctly discounted Dr. Grubbs' findings.
In sum, because the ALJ determined that at least one of Dean's other impairments was severe, and because substantial evidence supports his conclusion to the contrary regarding Dean's mental impairments, the ALJ did not err in concluding that Dean's mental impairments were not severe. B. Dean's Age Classification
Dean contends that the ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard by failing to consider whether he should be classified as a person closely approaching advanced age, i.e. older than fifty, rather than a younger person,
20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(b);
Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that the ALJ's determination that Dean is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ applied proper legal standards in reaching this determination. Therefore, the Commissioner's final decision is affirmed. A separate order in accordance with the memorandum of decision will be entered.
