Recommended Disposition

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Either party to this dispute may file written objections to this recommendation. An objection must be specific and state the factual and/or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding and the evidence supporting the objection. Objections must be filed with the clerk of the court no later than 14 days from the date of this recommendation.1 The objecting party must serve the opposing party with a copy of an objection. Failing to object within 14 days waives the right to appeal questions of fact.2 If no objections are filed, Judge Marshall may adopt the recommended disposition without independently reviewing all of the record evidence.

Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Douglas Wayne Smith seeks judicial review of the denial of his application for social security disability benefits.3 Mr. Smith last worked in January 2008, as a mixer for a feed mill.4 He claims he has been disabled since that time. He bases disability on back problems.5

The Commissioner's decision. After considering the application, the Commissioner's ALJ identified disorder of the back, asthma, and morbid obesity as severe impairments.6 The ALJ determined that Mr. Smith could do some light work.7 Because a vocational expert identified available work, the ALJ determined Mr. Smith was not disabled and denied the application.8

After the Commissioner's Appeals Council denied a request for review,9 the decision became a final decision for judicial review.10 Mr. Smith filed this case to challenge the decision.11 This recommended disposition explains why the court should affirm the decision.

Mr. Smith's allegation. Mr. Smith challenges the development of the record, arguing that the ALJ should have ordered a mental diagnostic evaluation because he testified he experiences depression. For this reason, he maintains, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision.12

Applicable legal principles. In reviewing the denial of disability benefits, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.13 For substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to show Mr. Smith could do some light work.

"Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds."14 The ALJ limited light work by requiring no frequent bending, crouching, or climbing; no moderate respiratory irritants; and no temperature extremes.15 The court must determine whether a reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to show that Mr. Smith could work with these limitations.

A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate because medical evidence shows no disabling symptoms. A claimant must prove disability with medical evidence; allegations alone are not enough to prove he is disabled.16 Mr. Smith claims his back has prevented him from working since January, 2008,17 but he sought no medical treatment for his back until July, 2013. At that time, diagnostic imaging showed mild degenerative change at level L1-2.18 The descriptor "mild" suggests no disabling symptoms. Mr. Smith says he did not seek treatment earlier because he lacked medical insurance, but he sought treatment for other reasons and failed to complain about his back.19

The agency physical examiner found mild tenderness in the lower back.20 Mr. Smith had a full range of motion with some discomfort and a mildly antalgic gait. He could rise from a sitting position without assistance, and could bend and squat with low back discomfort. The examiner reported mild limitations in sitting, walking, and standing due to low back pain, and mild limitations in lifting and carrying due to mild to moderate asthma.21 Agency medical experts limited Mr. Smith to light work involving limited postural functions due to back pain, and limited exposure to pulmonary irritants due to asthma. These restrictions are consistent with the ALJ's requirements.

No need existed for a mental diagnostic evaluation. "If sufficient evidence alerts the ALJ to the possibility of a severe mental impairment, the ALJ must further develop the record about mental impairments before ruling on the severity of the claimant's impairment(s)."22 Mr. Smith argues that the ALJ should have ordered a mental diagnostic evaluation, but the only evidence of mental impairment is Mr. Smith's testimony that he is depressed.23 Mr. Smith did not base his claim on depression. He sought no mental health treatment. Medical providers observed no signs of depression. In sum, the evidence suggests no severe mental impairment.24 The ALJ properly relied on the lack of evidence in denying the request for a mental diagnostic exam.25

Conclusion and Recommendation

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. The ALJ made no legal error. For these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Mr. Smith's request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner's decision.