Instructions for Recommended Disposition

H. DAVID YOUNG, Magistrate Judge.

The following recommended disposition will be sent to U.S. District Judge J. Leon Holmes. A party to this dispute may file and serve 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 Failing to object within 14 days may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.2 An objecting party who seeks to submit new, different, or additional evidence, or to obtain a hearing for that purpose, must address the following matters as part of written objections: (1) why the record before the magistrate judge was inadequate, (2) why the evidence was not presented to the magistrate judge, and (3) details and/or copies of any testimony and/or documents to be proffered at a hearing. Based on this submission, Judge Holmes will determine the need for a hearing.

Recommended Disposition

Vic Lawrence Norman seeks judicial review of the denial of his third application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.3 Norman stopped working on July 29, 2010, after he was hospitalized for an irregular heart beat. He claims he has been disabled since that time. He bases disability on his heart, poor circulation, high blood pressure, and shortness of breath.4

The Commissioner's decision. After considering the application, the Commissioner's ALJ determined Norman has severe impairments — cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and carpal tunnel syndrome in the non-dominant hand5 — but he can do some light work, to include his past work as a security guard.6 Because a person who can do his past work is not disabled7 and the ALJ, relying on testimony from a vocational expert, alternatively found there were other jobs in the national economy he could perform, the ALJ denied the application.8

After the Commissioner's Appeals Council denied a request for review,9 the ALJ's decision became a final decision for judicial review.10 Norman filed this case to challenge the decision.11 In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.12 This recommendation explains why substantial evidence supports the decision and why the ALJ made no legal error.

Norman's allegations. Norman claims he didn't receive a full and fair hearing, in part, because the ALJ did not consider all required factors in evaluating his credibility. He maintains the ALJ should have given his primary care physician's (PCP) opinion controlling weight. He contends the hypothetical question didn't consider his medications. He argues that the vocational expert's testimony conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). For these reasons, he maintains substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision.13

Applicable legal principles. For substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to show Norman can do his past work as a security guard.14 The DOT classifies a security guard as 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."15 The ALJ placed the following limitations on light work: (1) occasional handling and fingering with the non-dominant left hand, and (2) no excessive exposure to dust, smoke, fumes or other pulmonary irritants.16 The question before the court is whether Norman can work with these limitations.17

Whether substantial evidence exists. The ALJ's determination about a claimant's ability to work must be supported by medical evidence; a claimant's subjective allegations are not enough to prove he is disabled.18 The medical evidence shows Norman was hospitalized on July 29, 2010 for atrial flutter19 — a cardiac arrhythmia, or irregular heartbeat, in which the upper chambers of the heart beat faster than the lower chambers.20 Norman's third application flowed from the hospitalization. His condition provides no basis for disability benefits. His reliance on his doctor's medical opinion21 does not change the result — even though the ALJ mis-stated how often the doctor saw Norman — because the doctor indicated Norman's condition was not expected to last 12 continuous months.22

Atrial flutter. Atrial flutter "can cause a blood clot to form in the heart" which can lead to a stroke or an embolism.23 "Patients with atrial...flutter can live a normal life for many years as long as the arrhythmia is controlled and serious blood clots are prevented."24 There are several causes for atrial flutter; relevant here, high blood pressure, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake. Treating atrial flutter includes surgical ablation, controlling blood pressure, abstaining from smoking, and drinking alcohol in moderation.25

Norman is a long-time smoker and a heavy drinker.26 He underwent surgical ablation on July 30, 2010.27 He then underwent anticoagulation therapy.28 He's done well. He hasn't seen a cardiologist since October 2010.29 His heart beat has remained regular.30 He hasn't developed a blood clot. His blood pressure is under control. He continues to smoke and drink alcohol despite repeated warnings from medical providers. Norman's failure to follow medical advice weighs against his credibility.31 If he was as limited as he alleges, he would follow medical advice.

Medical recommendations show Norman's heart condition can be controlled. "An impairment which can be controlled by treatment or medication is not considered disabling."32 Norman's failure to follow medical advice without good reason bars him from obtaining disability benefits.33 A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to show atrial flutter doesn't prevent Norman from working because his heart rate is regular, he has no blood clots, and he does not follow medical advice.

COPD. Norman's complaints about shortness of breath might flow from his heart, but his lungs is a likely source. Norman has COPD.34 COPD is "a disease state characterized by the presence of airflow obstruction as a result of chronic bronchitis or emphysema."35 Smoking cigarettes is the primary cause of COPD.36 Norman has smoked for 35 years.

Doctors advised Norman to stop smoking, but he continues to smoke.37 Despite smoking, his lungs have been clear.38 The presence of wheezing, rales, or crackles would have evidenced difficulty with breathing.39 Medical exams indicate COPD does not prevent Norman from doing light work. Continuing to smoke, knowing the health hazards of smoking, weighs against Norman's credibility.40 A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to show COPD does not prevent Norman from working because his lungs are clear and he continues to smoke. To the extent Norman has difficulty breathing, the ALJ's restrictions on pulmonary irritants respond to that difficulty.

Carpal tunnel syndrome. Norman's doctor diagnosed carpal tunnel in the left wrist.41 "Carpal tunnel syndrome is a disorder caused by compression at the wrist of the median nerve supplying the hand, causing numbness and tingling."42 Norman reported weakness in the left arm and numbness in the fingertips.43

"Carpal tunnel syndrome is initially treated with splints, which support the wrist and prevent it from flexing inward into the position which exacerbates median nerve compression. ... The most severe cases ... may require surgery to decrease the compression of the median nerve and restore its normal function."44 Norman's doctor prescribed a wrist splint.45 Norman testified that the splint helps a little bit.46 Even though the record doesn't reflect the severity of Norman's carpal tunnel syndrome, a reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision despite carpal tunnel syndrome because it affects the left, non-dominant arm and because the ALJ limited fingering and handing with the left arm.

Vocational evidence. The ALJ asked the vocational expert about available work for a person with Norman's limitations.47 According to the vocational expert, such a person can work as a security guard.48 The vocational expert identified gate guard and ticket seller as other representative jobs.49 Norman asserts that the testimony conflicts with the DOT, but he identified no conflict. No conflict exists. None of the jobs the vocational expert identified exceed Norman's capacity.

To the extent he maintains the ALJ should have included limitations flowing from medication, he did not show medication limits his ability to work. A reasonable mind would accept the vocational evidence as adequate to show Norman can do his past work as a security guard, as well as other light work, regardless of whether such work exists where he lives, whether a job vacancy exists, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.50 Because such work exists, Norman is not disabled under social security disability law.

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 Norman's request for relief (docket entry #2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner's decision.

It is so ordered.