SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael L. Mitchell brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits [DIB]. After review of the record, the Commissioner's submission, and the relevant law, the court is of the opinion that the Commissioner's decision is due to be affirmed.
Mr. Mitchell filed an application for a period of disability and DIB on January 23, 2012, alleging a disability onset date of December 31, 2011. (See doc. 7-3 at R.11; see also doc. 7-6 at R.141.)
Mr. Mitchell asked the Appeals Council to review the ALJ's decision. (See id. at R.6.) The Appeals Council denied the request for review, stating that it had "found no reason under [its] rules to review the [ALJ's] decision." (Id. at 1.) Therefore, "the [ALJ's] decision is the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security in [Mr. Mitchell's] case." (Id.)
Mr. Mitchell filed an appeal in this court on April 24, 2015. (Doc. 1.)
In reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act, this court's role is a narrow one: "Our review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner, and whether the correct legal standards were applied." Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988). The court gives deference to factual findings. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145 (11th Cir. 1991). The court "may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner], rather [it] must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence." Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir.1983)) (internal quotations and other citation omitted). "The Commissioner's factual findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence." Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1221 (citing Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990); Allen v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 600, 602 (11th Cir. 1987)). "Substantial evidence" is "more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Conclusions of law made by the Commissioner are reviewed de novo. Cornelius, 936 F.2d at 1145. "No . . . presumption of validity attaches to the [Commissioner's] conclusions of law." Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387, 1389 (11th Cir. 1982).
The regulations require the Commissioner to follow a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is eligible for a period of disability and DIB. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(1)-(2); see also Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 470 (1986). "[A]n individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
The specific steps in the evaluation process are as follows:
First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 137 (1987). The regulations define "substantial gainful activity" as "work activity that is both substantial and gainful."
The ALJ found that Mr. Mitchell had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 31, 2011, the alleged onset date. (Doc. 7-3 at R.13.)
If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner must next determine whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c). "[A] `physical or mental impairment' is an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3). The regulations provide: "[I]f you do not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled. We will not consider your age, education, and work experience." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). "An impairment can be considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience." Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 920 (11th Cir. 1984); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). A complainant may be found disabled based on a combination of impairments even though none of the individual impairments alone are disabling. Walker v. Brown, 826 F.2d 996, 1001 (11th Cir. 1985); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523. A claimant has the burden to show that he has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. Reynolds-Buckley, 457 Fed. Appx. at 863.
The ALJ found that Mr. Mitchell had "the following severe impairments: status post bilateral bunionectomy; status post bilateral arthrodesis with subtalar joint implant; degenerative joint and disc conditions of C5-6, C6-7; old thoracic fractures; spondylolisthesis at L5, and mild scoliosis (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c))." (Doc. 7-3 at R.13.) He also found that "there is medically determinable hypertension, tachycardia, hiatal hernia with reflux disease, and dysuria that are nonsevere and impose no more than minimal limitations at any point," and that Mr. Mitchell had a "history [of] depression and anxiety," which did "not affect his capacity for mental and physical work activity." (Id. at R.16, R.17.)
If the claimant has a severe impairment, the Commissioner must then determine whether the claimant's impairment meets or is equivalent to any one of the listed impairments, which are impairments that are so severe as to prevent an individual with the described impairment from performing substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d)-(e); see 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 [The Listings]. If the claimant's impairment meets or equals an impairment in the Listings, the Commissioner must find the claimant disabled, regardless of the claimant's age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). The claimant has the burden of proving that his impairment meets or equals the criteria contained in one of the Listings. Reynolds-Buckley, 457 Fed. Appx. at 863.
The ALJ found that Mr. Mitchell did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the impairments in the Listings. (Doc. 7-3 at R.17.)
If the impairment or combination of impairments does not meet or equal the criteria of a Listing, the claimant must prove that his impairment or combination of impairments prevents him from performing his past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), (f). At step four, the Commissioner "will first compare [her] assessment of [the claimant's] residual functional capacity [RFC] with the physical and mental demands of [the claimant's] past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b). "Past relevant work is work that [the claimant has] done within the past 15 years, that was substantial gainful activity, and that lasted long enough for [him] to learn to do it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1). If the claimant is capable of performing his past relevant work, the Commissioner will find he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(e). The claimant bears the burden of establishing that the impairment or combination or impairments prevents him from performing past work. Reynolds-Buckley, 457 Fed. Appx. at 863.
The ALJ found that Mr. Mitchell could perform a limited range of light work; he found:
(Doc. 7-3 at R.17-18 [footnote added].) Based on the RFC, the ALJ found that Mr. Mitchell could not perform his past relevant work as a correctional officer. (Id. at R.22.)
If the claimant establishes that he is unable to perform his past relevant work, the Commissioner must show that the claimant — in light of his RFC, age, education, and work experience — is capable of performing other work that exists in substantial numbers in the national economy. Reynolds-Buckley, 457 Fed. Appx. at 863; see also 20 C.F.R. §404.1560(c)(1). The regulations provide:
20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(1). If the claimant is not capable of performing such other work, the Commissioner must find the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If, however, the Commissioner finds that the claimant can perform other work, the claimant has the burden to prove he is not capable of performing such other work.
The ALJ found that Mr. Mitchell, who was born in 1962, was a "younger individual" on the alleged onset date and "closely approaching advanced age" on the date of his decision. (Doc. 7-3 at R.22-23.) He had a high school education and some job training. (Id. at R.23.) The ALJ found that "[t]ransferability of job skills [was] not material to [his] determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework support[ed] a finding that the claimant [was] `not disabled,' whether or not [Mr. Mitchell had] transferable job skills." (Id. [citing SSR 82-41 and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2].)
Because the RFC was based on a limited range of light work, the ALJ consulted a vocational expert [VE]. (Id.) The VE testified that an individual with Mr. Mitchell's RFC and vocational factors could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, including marker and assembler-electrical, and production line solderer
Therefore, the ALJ found that Mr. Mitchell had "not been under a disability . . . from December 31, 2011, through the date of [his] decision," November 21, 2013. (Id.)
In his Complaint, Mr. Mitchell states:
(Doc. 1 at 2 [emphasis in original].) Mr. Mitchell did not file a brief in support of his claim or otherwise direct the court to the specific exhibits he alleges support his claims of error. In addition to addressing the two issues set forth in the Complaint, the court has reviewed the entire record to determine whether the correct legal standards were applied and whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ found, "Claimant testified he also sustained an abdomen tear, further back injuries, and pinched nerves from the February 2013 accident.. . . There is no reference anywhere in the record to `pinched' nerves, chronic muscle spasms, or other back injuries except strain." (Doc. 7-3 at R.14.) The court has reviewed Mr. Mitchell's medical records and finds no report, reference, or diagnosis of pinched or impinged nerves.
The court finds that the ALJ's Decision, finding no reference to pinched nerves in Mr. Mitchell's medical records, is supported by the court's review of the entire medical record.
Apparently, Mr. Mitchell's contention, that the ALJ found he had no limitation or impairment, refers to the ALJ's finding in his Decision that "Dr. Waldrop [had] opined in October 2012, that claimant had no limitations and no impairments at this time." (Doc. 7-3 at R.21 [internal citation omitted].) In fact on October 23, 2012, Dr. Waldrop wrote, "It is my professional opinion that patient Michael Mitchell has no limitations or impairments at this time." (Doc. 7-8 at R.265.) Despite the ALJ's reference to Dr. Waldrop's October 2012 opinion, the ALJ did
(Doc. 7-3 at R.21 [footnote added].)
Contrary to Mr. Mitchell's assertion, the ALJ specifically found he had the following impairments: "status post bilateral bunionectomy; status post bilateral arthrodesis with subtalar joint implant; degenerative joint and disc conditions of C5-6, C6-7; old thoracic fractures; spondylolisthesis at L5, and mild scoliosis." (Id. at R.13.) Moreover, he found that Mr. Mitchell had a number of limitations:
(See id. at R.17-18.) Also, as set forth above, the ALJ gave only "significant" — not "great" — weight to Dr. Waldrop's opinion specifically because "there is evidence of greater limitation than [he] allowed." (Id. at R.21.)
The ALJ's Decision discussed and considered all of the evidence of record. He did not rely only on Dr. Waldrop's opinion; indeed, he specifically stated that he found greater limitations than those expressed by Dr. Waldrop or Dr. Rickless, the consultative examiner. The ALJ noted the record contained "evidence of moderate degenerative disc disease at C5-6 and C6-7, spondylolisthesis at L5, and mild scoliosis, . . . [and] severe degenerative changes of the thoracic spine, with old fractures." (Id. at R.14 [internal citations omitted]; see also doc. 7-9 at R.291-93.) Mr. Mitchell's contention that the ALJ relied on Dr. Waldrop's October 2012 opinion to find Mr. Mitchell had no limitations and no impairments is not supported by the record and/or the explicit language of the ALJ's Decision.
The court has reviewed the entire administrative law record and it finds the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Commissioner's decision to deny Mr. Mitchell's claim for a period of disability and DIB will be affirmed.
Based on the reasons set forth above, the decision of the Commissioner, denying plaintiff's claim for a period of disability and DIB will be affirmed. An Order affirming the decision of the Commissioner will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1572.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).
