Filed: Jul. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 1 of 32 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 16-10506 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-01434-MAP EDDIE SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (July 13, 2017) Before HULL, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/
Summary: Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 1 of 32 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 16-10506 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-01434-MAP EDDIE SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (July 13, 2017) Before HULL, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2..
More
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 1 of 32
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10506
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-01434-MAP
EDDIE SAMPSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 13, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 2 of 32
Eddie Sampson appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ”) denial of his application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), respectively. On appeal, Sampson offers two main
challenges to the ALJ’s decision. First, he contends that the ALJ failed to properly
evaluate and weigh the medical opinions of his treating physicians and, as a result,
crafted a residual functional capacity that was not supported by substantial
evidence. Second, he contends that the ALJ failed to articulate adequate reasons
for discrediting his testimony about his symptoms.
I. Background
Sampson applied for disability benefits in August 2007. He was 50 years
old on the alleged onset date of March 22, 2007. He has a GED and past relevant
work as a crane operator, a tire repairer, a garbage collector, a sales route driver,
and a floor coating installer. Sampson claimed that he was no longer able to work
because of a combination of physical and mental impairments, including diabetes,
vision problems, high blood pressure, gallbladder disease, Hepatitis C, depression,
impulse control, personality disorder, and arthritic knees. His applications were
denied initially and upon reconsideration.
Sampson requested and received a hearing before an ALJ. That hearing was
held in September 2009. In November 2009, the ALJ rendered an unfavorable
2
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 3 of 32
decision. Sampson appealed to the Appeals Council, which granted review and
remanded the case for a new hearing and decision. The same ALJ held a second
hearing in March 2012 and then rendered a partially favorable decision, finding
Sampson disabled after September 11, 2011, but not before.
A. Relevant evidence before the ALJ
Sampson testified at both administrative hearings. At the first hearing in
September 2009, Sampson testified that his physical impairments, primarily his
arthritic knees and fatigue, prevented him from sitting for more than 30 minutes at
a time, walking farther than short distances, and crawling or crouching altogether.
His daily activities included some housework, laundry, cooking, and driving. Due
to irritability and lack of impulse control, Sampson had difficulty getting along
with others and had been seeing a therapist to help control his temper.
At the second hearing on remand from the Appeals Council in March 2012,
Sampson stated that the condition of his feet and knees had worsened since the last
hearing. He could sit for fifteen to twenty minutes and stand unassisted for about
ten minutes, and he could not walk farther than short distances. Due to his diabetic
peripheral neuropathy 1, both feet burned and pulsated all the time, and even worse
when he sat for a long time. He experienced drowsiness as a side effect of his
1
Peripheral neuropathy is the result of damage to peripheral nerves. Symptoms of
peripheral neuropathy include numbness, tingling, and pain, usually in the hands or feet.
Peripheral neuropathy may also cause muscle weakness and loss of reflexes. See Nat’l Diabetes
Information Clearinghouse, Diabetic Neuropathies: The Nerve Damage of Diabetes,
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/neuropathies (last visited June 8, 2017).
3
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 4 of 32
medications. The ALJ noted on the record that Sampson twice stood up during the
hour-long second hearing.
Medical records show that Sampson began receiving treatment from
Elizabeth Quick-Koscho, M.D., at Community Health Centers in July 2006 for
uncontrolled Type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Sampson first complained
of knee pain in May 2008. An examination revealed bilateral knee crepitus and
pain with palpation of the right lateral joint line, and an x-ray showed calcification
of the patella. Dr. Koscho prescribed Tylenol #3 (acetaminophen/codeine). In
August 2008, Sampson said that pain in his feet, knees, and ankles was preventing
him from exercising, though in December 2008 he reported feeling good about
starting an exercise routine. In January 2009, Dr. Koscho again prescribed Tylenol
#3.
From January 2009 through September 2009, Sampson saw doctors other
than Dr. Koscho and continued to complain of knee pain. On March 17, Sampson
said that he needed a refill of Tylenol #3 for his knee pain. On June 9, he said that
knee and ankle pain were preventing him from walking or lifting weights. On June
16, he said that he needed something stronger than Tylenol #3. An examination on
June 16 revealed bilateral knee crepitus, and Sampson was prescribed a trial of
tramadol for his knee pain. Sampson complained of anxiety and difficulty sleeping
in July 2009. On August 24, 2009, Sampson reported “continued and increasing
4
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 5 of 32
knee pain” that was “so bad he ha[d] been gritting his teeth and broke a denture.”
An examination revealed tenderness in both knees, and Sampson was diagnosed
with knee-joint pain. Sampson’s balance, gait, and stance were normal.
On September 11, 2009, Sampson returned to Dr. Koscho, complaining of
persistent knee pain that was unresponsive to Tylenol #3. Dr. Koscho prescribed
Ultram, a brand-name version of tramadol.
On that same date, Dr. Koscho completed a medical source statement about
Sampson’s ability to work. Based on Sampson’s knee pain and stiffness and an x-
ray that showed bilateral ossification of the inferior patella, Dr. Koscho opined that
Sampson was limited in his ability to stand, walk, and sit. In an eight-hour
workday day, Dr. Koscho said, Sampson could stand or walk for a total of two
hours, for thirty minutes at a time, and he could sit for a total of three hours, for
thirty minutes at a time. Sampson could not stoop, crouch, kneel, or crawl, though
he could occasionally climb and frequently balance. The doctor also noted that
Sampson had unspecified psychological issues that prevented him for working.
Sampson began treatment with Andrew Villamagna, M.D., a doctor of
family medicine, on December 10, 2009. At his first visit, Sampson reported
worsening knee pain, particularly in the morning and when rising from a seated
position, as well as knee stiffness, intermittent knee locking, and a popping sound
in the knee. An examination of the knees revealed “abnormal” appearance,
5
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 6 of 32
tenderness on palpation bilaterally, and pain with range-of-motion testing. Dr.
Villamagna diagnosed hypertension, poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, and
patellofemoral syndrome. The note from December 10 indicates that Sampson was
to be referred to an orthopedist, and the record contains an orthopedic referral
filled out by Dr. Villamagna. (Tr. 737). A follow-up visit on December 18
indicates that Dr. Villamagna again found tenderness on palpation of both knees
and pain elicited by motion. The doctor diagnosed localized primary osteoarthritis
in both knees.
The treatment records from December 2009 through May 2011 indicate no
significant change in Sampson’s symptoms. Joint knee pain and osteoarthritis are
consistently listed as “Active Problems.” These records generally note that
Sampson was “self-reliant in usual daily activities,” that his gait, stance, and
balance were normal, and that no diabetic peripheral neuropathy was noted. On
November 16, 2010, however, Dr. Villamagna stated that Sampson had
complained that his ankles, feet, and knees were “very painful with pins and
needles” and that it was difficult to walk or work out. The doctor noted that
Sampson was being seen by a podiatrist for his feet.
On May 20, 2011, Sampson complained of moderate left knee-joint pain for
the previous three weeks and was advised to see an orthopedist. Sampson had
6
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 7 of 32
bilateral tenderness on palpation in the suprapatellar region of the knee and left
knee tenderness on palpation of the inferior pole patella and infrapatellar tendon.
Dr. Villamagna completed a medical source statement on May 28, 2011.
According to Dr. Villamagna, Sampson’s primary symptoms were moderately
severe fatigue (rated as an 8 out of 10), moderate pain (rated as a 6 out of 10),
depression, and mania. Dr. Villamagna opined that Sampson could sit for three
hours total and stand or walk for two hours total in an eight-hour workday, and that
he would need to get up and move around every fifteen minutes when sitting. Dr.
Villamagna stated that Sampson’s symptoms were frequently severe enough to
interfere with his attention and concentration, and that during an eight-hour
workday, he needed breaks to rest every fifteen minutes for fifteen minutes each
time. Sampson’s symptoms and limitations, according to the doctor, had been
present since March 2009.
Sampson began seeing a podiatrist, Ian Klein, D.P.M., in May 2010. At his
initial consultation with Dr. Klein, Sampson complained of burning, tingling,
pulsations, and aching pain in his knees, legs, ankles, calves, and feet. An
examination revealed decreased patellar and Achilles reflexes and decreased
bilateral vibratory sensation and proprioception. Monofilament testing 2 was within
2
A doctor may assess protective sensation or feeling in the feet by touching them with a
nylon monofilament. People who cannot sense pressure from a monofilament have lost
protective sensation and are at risk for developing foot sores that may not heal properly. Nat’l
7
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 8 of 32
normal limits. Dr. Klein diagnosed diabetes with neuropathy, bilateral
symptomatic diabetic polyneuropathy, and dystrophic toenails. The podiatrist
prescribed gabapentin for pain caused by peripheral neuropathy.
Later treatment notes reflect complaints of worsening pain and throbbing in
Sampson’s feet, as well as consistent findings that vibratory sensation and
proprioception were decreased and that monofilament testing was within normal
limits. Based on Sampson’s complaints of worsening neuropathic pain, Dr. Klein
directed Sampson on multiple occasions to double his dosage of gabapentin.
Sampson’s prescription began at 300 mg/day and increased to 2400 mg/day in
September 2010. Sampson also had surgery to correct a hammertoe.
Dr. Klein completed a medical source statement related to Sampson’s foot
impairments in April 2011. The doctor opined that Sampson was able to sit for
eight hours total and to stand or walk for one hour total in an eight-hour workday,
and that, while sitting, he needed to get up and move around every hour and not sit
again for five minutes. The doctor relied on clinical findings of extremity pain and
numbness, difficulty walking, and burning, tingling, and aching pain, as well as
diagnostic testing which showed decreased reflexes and decreased vibratory
Diabetes Information Clearinghouse, Diabetic Neuropathies: The Nerve Damage of Diabetes,
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/neuropathies (last visited June 8, 2017).
8
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 9 of 32
sensation. Dr. Klein found that Sampson’s limitations were present since at least
May 2010.
In November 2011, Sampson underwent surgery of his left knee to repair a
medial meniscal tear. About one month later, he was evaluated by William Moore,
M.D., at the request of the ALJ. According to Dr. Moore, Sampson complained of
“difficulty with pain in his knees beginning in 2011,” with the left knee hurting
more than the right. Sampson also complained of pain and numbness from
diabetic neuropathy, which had been present for years and the intensity of which
he rated as, at times, 9 on a 10-point scale. Both his knee pain and diabetic
neuropathy pain were worse when walking. An examination found an abnormal
gait, an inability to walk on heels and toes without difficulty, an inability to squat,
limited flexion of the left knee, and sensory deficits in both feet.
Dr. Moore also prepared a medical source statement, opining that, in an
eight-hour workday, Sampson could sit for four hours total and for thirty minutes
at a time, could stand for three hours total and for ten minutes at a time, and could
walk for one hour total and for five minutes at a time. Sampson could never stoop,
crouch, crawl, or climb ladders. Despite the limitations noted above, Dr. Moore
found that Sampson was generally capable of caring for himself.
In January and February 2012, Sampson reported to Dr. Villamagna that his
left knee did not seem to be healing and that he was having more difficulty
9
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 10 of 32
walking. Sampson also complained of pain in his right knee. The records for these
two visits still indicate that he was “self-reliant in usual daily activities.”
In addition to his physical impairments, the medical records show that
Sampson received treatment for mental impairments beginning in 2007. Pertinent
to this appeal, Sampson began treatment in July 2009 at Suncoast Center for
Community Mental Health, Inc., reporting symptoms of sleep disturbance,
decreased appetite, difficulty concentrating, feelings of worthlessness, racing
thoughts, and an irritable mood. Sampson began treating with Edwin Jackson,
M.D., a psychiatrist at Suncoast, on August 4, 2009. On that date, after a mental-
status examination, Dr. Jackson diagnosed Sampson with mood disorder NOS (i.e.,
not otherwise specified), reported a Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) 3
score of 50, and prescribed Lamictal.
At a follow-up visit on October 23, 2009, Sampson reported being happy
with Lamictal, which had helped with his irritability. Dr. Jackson noted that
Sampson was “pleasant,” his speech was normal in rate, volume, and tone, his
mood and affect were congruent, he had no thoughts of self-harm, his thought
content and thought processes were within normal limits, and his insight and
3
The GAF scale is a numeric scale from 1 to 100 that mental health professionals
sometimes use to evaluate an individual’s occupational, psychological, and social functioning.
See American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
30–32 (4th ed. 2000). Generally, lower scores indicate more severe impairments and higher
scores less so. According to the DSM-IV, a GAF score between 41 and 50 indicates serious
symptoms or impairments. See id. at 32.
10
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 11 of 32
judgment were normal. Sampson reported decreased irritability on November 30,
2009. In March 2010, Dr. Jackson again increased Sampson’s dose of Lamictal.
In May 2010, Sampson reported doing well on Lamictal but stated that he had been
feeling “extremely angry” because his girlfriend’s alcoholic step-son was living
with them. Dr. Jackson noted that Sampson appeared somewhat depressed. Dr.
Jackson prescribed Lamictal, Trazodone, Klonopin, and Celexa.
Dr. Jackson completed a medical source statement on May 19, 2010. He
listed diagnoses of mood disorder and rule out bipolar disorder, and he stated that
Sampson’s GAF score was 45, with a low score of 40 in the previous year. Based
on clinical findings including poor memory, appetite disturbance with weight
change, sleep disturbance, personality change, mood disturbance, emotional
lability, social withdrawal or isolation, decreased energy, hostility and irritability,
and severe anger with hostility, Dr. Jackson opined that Sampson was markedly
limited in numerous areas of functioning and moderately limited in several others.
Sampson, Dr. Jackson stated, was not capable of even low-stress work due to
mood swings, hostility, and anger.
B. ALJ’s partially favorable decision
On April 20, 2012, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Sampson
disabled as of September 11, 2011, but not before. Applying the five-step
sequential evaluation process, the ALJ determined that Sampson had the following
11
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 12 of 32
severe impairments: obesity, diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, history of
hepatitis, bilateral osteoarthritis of the knees, and bipolar disorder with anxiety and
depression. Concluding that Sampson’s impairments did not meet or equal one of
the impairments listed in the social security regulations, the ALJ went on to assess
Sampson’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”).
Upon reviewing Sampson’s medical records, medical opinions from various
physicians, and Sampson’s testimony, the ALJ concluded that before September
11, 2011, Sampson had the RFC to do light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), with the following limitations: he could not climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; he could not work around unprotected heights; he
could kneel and climb ramps or stairs occasionally; he could understand,
remember, and carry out simple, routine, repetitive procedures and instructions; he
could make simple and routine adjustments to work procedures; he could make
basic work-related decisions; and he could tolerate occasional interaction with
others.
The ALJ based the RFC assessment on “the medical record; [his]
observations of the claimant during the hearing; and the medical opinion of Dr.
Klein.” Although this RFC left Sampson unable to perform his past relevant work,
the ALJ found that there were jobs in the national economy he could have
performed. Accordingly, the ALJ found that Sampson was not under a disability
12
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 13 of 32
from the onset date to September 11, 2011. Sampson’s RFC after September 11,
2011, the date of his 55th birthday, includes one additional limitation: he was “able
to sit for no more than 15 minutes at a time and stand for no more than 15 minutes
at a time.”
With regard to the medical opinions, the ALJ gave “little weight” to the
opinions of every treating physician but Dr. Klein. Regarding Dr. Klein, the ALJ
“agree[d] with his view that the claimant is able to sit for eight hours in an eight-
hour workday” and gave that aspect of his opinion “moderate weight.” But the
ALJ “d[id] not agree with his view that [Sampson] is not able to stand or walk for
more than an hour.” The ALJ disagreed with that view because the doctor “never
once in his treatment notes . . . advise[d] Sampson to limit his standing or
walking,” an advisement the ALJ “expect[ed] to find” if Sampson were as limited
as the medical source statement indicated. The ALJ therefore gave “little weight”
to Dr. Klein’s opinion regarding Sampson’s ability to stand or walk.
The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Villamagna’s opinion because many of the
limitations he indicated were inconsistent with his own treatment records, he did
not cite medical evidence to support some of the limitations, and he addressed
some areas beyond his specialty, specifically Sampson’s mental impairments. The
ALJ also gave little weight to Dr. Koscho’s opinion because he could not
determine which doctor had completed the assessment, the treatment records did
13
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 14 of 32
not support the limitations in the opinion, and the ALJ’s observations of Sampson
during the hearing “directly contradict[ed]” the opinion expressed in the statement.
Finally, the ALJ gave Dr. Jackson’s opinion little weight because it contradicted
both the treatment record at Suncoast and the ALJ’s observations of Sampson
during the hearing.
Addressing Sampson’s subjective testimony, the ALJ found that Sampson’s
complaints of pain and symptoms were not fully credible prior to September 11,
2011, even though his impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the
alleged symptoms. The ALJ concluded, however, that Sampson’s allegations
regarding his symptoms and limitations were generally credible beginning around
September 11, 2011. By that point, the ALJ stated, “the condition of his knees due
to osteoarthritis, obesity, and a tendon tear in the left knee had become serious
enough for him to undergo an operation on November 18, 2011.” And since that
operation, the ALJ explained, Sampson had suffered from intense knee pain that
significantly restricted his ability to walk, stand, or climb.
The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s second decision. Sampson
then sought judicial review in federal district court. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A
magistrate judge, exercising jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties,
affirmed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Sampson now appeals.
14
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 15 of 32
II. Discussion
A. Standards of review
“In Social Security appeals, we must determine whether the [ALJ’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) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Review for substantial evidence is deferential; we must
affirm if a reasonable basis exists in the record for the conclusion reached. See
id.
We may not reweigh the evidence or decide the facts anew.
Id. We review “legal
conclusions de novo because no presumption of validity attaches to the [ALJ’s]
determination of the proper legal standards to be applied in evaluating claims.”
Davis v. Shalala,
958 F.2d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although our review is deferential, “[w]e must scrutinize the record as a
whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by
substantial evidence.” MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir.
1986). The ALJ must state with at least some measure of clarity the grounds for
his decision, and we will not affirm “simply because some rationale might have
supported the ALJ’s conclusions.”
Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.
B. Disability framework
To be eligible for disability insurance benefits or supplemental security
income, a claimant must be under a disability, which means the claimant is unable
15
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 16 of 32
to work on a regular and continuing basis. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208,
1211 (11th Cir. 2005). The Social Security regulations outline a five-step process
to be used to determine disability for both claims.
Id. The claimant has the burden
to prove that (1) he “has not engaged in substantial gainful activity,” (2) he “has a
severe impairment or combination of impairments,” and (3) his “impairment or
combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment,” which results in
an automatic finding of disability. Jones v. Apfel,
190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir.
1999). If the claimant cannot prevail at the third step, he must prove at the fourth
step that he is “unable to perform [his] past relevant work.”
Id.
At the fourth step, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s RFC, which is an
assessment of a claimant’s remaining ability to work despite his impairments.
Phillips v. Barnhart,
357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). If, based on the RFC,
a claimant cannot return to his past relevant work, the ALJ moves on to step five,
where the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that “there is other work
available in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant is able
to perform.”
Jones, 190 F.3d at 1228. If the Commissioner meets that burden,
“the claimant must prove that []he is unable to perform those jobs in order to be
found disabled.”
Id.
C. Medical opinion evidence
The focus of Sampson’s appeal is that the ALJ failed to property evaluate
16
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 17 of 32
the medical opinions of his treating physicians and, as a result, crafted an RFC that
lacks the support of substantial evidence. Sampson broadly contends that the ALJ
failed to provide good reasons for discounting these opinions and that, contrary to
the findings of the ALJ, his physicians’ treatment notes were consistent with the
limitations assessed in the opinions.
When determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant
evidence, including medical records, medical opinions, and subjective testimony.
Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). Medical opinions are
statements from physicians and other medical sources that reflect judgments about
the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments, including both symptoms
and resulting limitations.
Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178–79.
Under the relevant regulations, the ALJ must give “controlling weight” to an
opinion from a treating source if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other
substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Likewise, we
have stated that, absent “good cause,” a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to
“substantial or considerable weight.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Such “good
cause” exists when (1) the physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence,
(2) the evidence supported a contrary finding, or (3) the physician’s opinion was
conclusory or inconsistent with his or her own medical records.
Id. If the ALJ
17
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 18 of 32
does not grant controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ still
must weigh the opinion based on various factors outlined in the regulations. See
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(6).
The ALJ must clearly articulate the weight given to different medical
opinions and the reasons for doing so. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. When the
ALJ’s articulated reasons for assigning limited weight to a treating physician’s
opinion are supported by substantial evidence, there is no reversible error. See
Moore, 405 F.3d at 1212. With these general principles in mind, we turn to an
evaluation of the opinions at issue.
1. Dr. Klein
Dr. Klein, who had been seeing Sampson regularly since May 2010 for his
foot impairments, opined in April 2011 that Sampson’s ability to stand and walk in
an eight-hour workday was significantly restricted and that he could not sit for
longer than an hour without having to get up and move around for five minutes. In
giving all but a small part of this opinion little weight, the ALJ did not cast doubt
on Dr. Klein’s diagnostic techniques or clinical findings or explain why they did
not support the limitations assessed. Nor did the ALJ cite other record evidence to
contract Dr. Klein’s opinion. Instead, the sole reason given by the ALJ for
rejecting Dr. Klein’s opinion was that the doctor in his treatment notes never
18
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 19 of 32
advised Sampson to limit his standing or walking. On this record, this reason does
not amount to good cause.
As other circuits have noted, there is a “distinction between a doctor’s notes
for purposes of treatment and that doctor’s ultimate opinion on the claimant’s
ability to work.” Brownawell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 554 F.3d 352, 356 (3d Cir.
2008); see Leckenby v. Astrue,
487 F.3d 626, 633 n.7 (8th Cir. 2007); cf. Sharfarz
v. Bowen,
825 F.2d 278, 280 (11th Cir. 1987) (doctor’s statement in a treatment
note that a claimant was “significantly better” during a visit did not provide a
“sound basis” for rejecting the doctor’s assessment of the claimant’s inability to
work). “The primary function of medical records is to promote communication
and recordkeeping for health care personnel.” See Orn v. Astrue,
495 F.3d 625,
634 (9th Cir. 2007). It is “not to provide evidence for disability determinations.”
Id. The mere fact that a doctor’s judgments about a claimant’s work-related
limitations are not expressly reflected in treatment notes does not necessarily mean
that the judgments are inconsistent with the treatment notes.
We take the ALJ’s point to be that Dr. Klein’s treatment notes do not
support the severity of the restrictions in his assessment. But the ALJ did not
explain, nor is it apparent, why Dr. Klein’s opinion was not supported by his
findings or was inconsistent with other substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The doctor based his assessment on the diagnosis
19
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 20 of 32
of Type II Diabetes Mellitus with neuropathic complications, clinical findings of
extremity pain and numbness, difficulty walking, and burning, tingling, and aching
pain, and diagnostic findings of decreased reflexes on testing and decreased
vibratory sensation, all of which are reflected in the treatment notes. The notes
also reflect Sampson’s repeated complaints of worsening pain and throbbing in his
feet and limbs, for which Dr. Klein doubled Sampson’s pain medication on at least
three occasions. That Sampson’s neuropathy impaired his ability to stand or walk,
particularly for longer periods of time, is also supported by Dr. Moore’s evaluation
in November 2011. Dr. Moore specifically noted that Sampson’s ability to walk
was impacted by his peripheral neuropathy pain. And only Dr. Moore and Dr.
Klein offered an opinion about how Sampson’s diabetic peripheral neuropathy
would affect his ability to work. In light of this evidence, and based on the limited
explanation provided by the ALJ, we find no substantial evidence to support the
ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Klein’s opinion was inconsistent with or not supported
by his medical findings.4
We also agree with Sampson that the ALJ erred in its treatment of another
part of Dr. Klein’s opinion. The ALJ failed to incorporate into the RFC finding
4
We recognize that the ALJ found Sampson’s complaints of pain due to diabetic
neuropathy “not fully credible.” But the ALJ did not discuss this finding in relation to Dr.
Klein’s opinion, it is not offered by the Commissioner as a reason for deferring to the ALJ’s
decision, and we may not affirm “simply because some rationale might have supported the ALJ’s
conclusions.” See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Moreover, the ALJ stated that there was nothing
in the record “to verify objectively his claims of sensory loss,” but Dr. Klein’s records show that
diagnostic testing found decreased reflexes, vibratory sensation, and proprioception.
20
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 21 of 32
Dr. Klein’s view that Sampson needed to get up and move around every hour and
not sit again for five minutes or to give a reason for not doing so. In response, the
Commissioner argues that, because Dr. Klein responded “no” to the question of
whether it would be necessary or medically recommended for Sampson “not to sit
continuously in a work setting,” the omitted limitation was merely a “suggestion,”
not an actual work-related limitation that the ALJ needed to address or include.
While the Commissioner’s interpretation of Dr. Klein’s assessment may be
reasonable, we cannot tell from the face of the assessment what Dr. Klein intended
by his responses, given that he included the specific statement that Sampson
needed to get up and move around once every hour and not sit again for five
minutes. Because the ALJ did not discuss or resolve this ambiguity or
inconsistency, we may not decide the facts anew and resolve the issue ourselves.
See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. Moreover, because we have found that substantial
evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision to discount the remainder of Dr.
Klein’s opinion, we cannot conclude that the ALJ’s omission of the doctor’s
additional sitting limitation was harmless. And the Commissioner does not dispute
Sampson’s assertion that the additional limitation, if it is in fact a limitation, is
material to the disability determination.
Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ’s stated reasons for discounting Dr.
Klein’s opinion are not supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 1179.
21
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 22 of 32
2. Dr. Koscho and Dr. Villamagna
Dr. Koscho, who had been treating Sampson since 2006, opined in
September 2009 that Sampson was significantly limited in his ability to sit, stand,
walk, and alternately sit and stand based on knee pain and stiffness and an x-ray
that showed bilateral ossification of the inferior patella. In May 2011, Dr.
Villamagna, who had been treating Sampson since December 2009, reported
similar restrictions in Sampson’s ability to sit, stand, walk, and alternately sit and
stand because of fatigue and constant, arthritic knee pain. The ALJ gave these
opinions little weight because, among other reasons, the opinions were inconsistent
with or not supported by the doctors’ treatment notes.
After careful review, we find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
decision to give these opinions little weight. As the ALJ explained, Sampson did
not complain of knee pain until May 2008, more than a year after the alleged onset
date. While the treatment records reflect that Sampson was diagnosed with
osteoarthritis, that he experienced persistent pain in his knees, and that
examinations occasionally found pain, tenderness, and crepitus, the records also
indicate that the pain was mostly being managed by medication and that it was not
severe enough to affect his gait. Despite a few complaints by Sampson, mostly in
2009, that the Tylenol #3 medication was not strong enough, it appears that he
continued to take Tylenol #3 from 2009 through 2011. And as the district court
22
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 23 of 32
noted, “After December 2009, there is no record that [Sampson] complained he
was in constant pain and his medications were not working.” For example, the
medical records from December 2009 through May 2011, when Dr. Villamagna
completed the assessment, show only occasional complaints of pain related to his
knees; the majority of these records do not contain any findings specific to knee
pain. The fact that Sampson underwent knee surgery in November 2011 supports
the ALJ’s determination that Sampson’s knee impairments were less severe before
that time.
In sum, the ALJ articulated good cause for giving little weight to the treating
physicians’ opinions about Sampson’s physical limitations, and substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that, prior to September 11, 2011,
Sampson did not have knee impairments that would result in the severe degree of
work-related limitations indicated by both Dr. Koscho and Dr. Villamagna. 5
Sampson also takes issue with some of the other reasons given by the ALJ
for rejecting these two opinions.6 He asserts that ALJ relied on the same “flawed
reasoning,” as discussed above with regard to Dr. Klein’s opinion, “that the
5
As for Dr. Villamagna’s opinion about the complicating effects of Sampson’s bipolar
disorder, that opinion is not supported by the treatment notes, which repeatedly state that
Sampson had no behavioral complaints or difficulty carrying out daily activities as a result of
depressive symptoms. And, as the ALJ noted, Dr. Villamagna primarily treated Sampson’s
physical impairments. Finally, Dr. Villamagna’s opinion that Sampson would miss three or
more days per month was conclusory because the doctor did not cite any medical evidence to
support that limitation.
6
Both parties agree that Dr. Koscho completed the September 2009 assessment, so the
ALJ’s inability to determine the identity of its author did not provide good cause.
23
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 24 of 32
treatment notes did not contain functional limitations for [Sampson].” We
conclude, however, that, in contrast to the ALJ’s review of Dr. Klein’s opinion,
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that the limitations assessed by Dr.
Koscho and Dr. Villamagna were inconsistent with or not supported by the
treatment notes.
Sampson also contends that the ALJ engaged in improper “sit and squirm”
jurisprudence by relying on an observation of Sampson during the hearing—that he
sat for an hour and exhibited no sign of pain or discomfort—to discredit Dr.
Koscho’s assessment. The ALJ’s reliance on this observation is problematic for a
few reasons. Not only does the observation suggest impermissible “sit and
squirm” jurisprudence, see Wilson v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 513, 518 (11th Cir. 1984)
(finding that an ALJ improperly engaged in sit and squirm jurisprudence in relying
on the observation “that claimant was not suffering pain of a disabling nature
because [the claimant] did not appear to be in great pain at the hearing”), but also
the stated observation appears to be inaccurate. Contrary to the ALJ’s stated
observation, the ALJ noted on the record during the second hearing that Sampson
stood up twice during the hour-long hearing, which suggests some pain and
discomfort. And, as Sampson notes, the ALJ appears to have made the observation
during a period (post-September 2011) when Sampson was determined to be
disabled.
24
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 25 of 32
Nevertheless, despite some problematic aspects of the ALJ’s decision, we
conclude that these errors are harmless under the circumstances because the ALJ
articulated good cause for giving less weight to these treating physicians’ opinions
and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that their opinions were
inconsistent with or not supported by their treatment notes. See Winschel, 631
F.3d at 1179.
3. Dr. Jackson
We conclude that substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s decision to
give little weight to Dr. Jackson’s May 19, 2010, medical-source statement
because the opinion was inconsistent with or not supported by his treatment notes.7
Although Dr. Jackson’s medical opinion indicated that Sampson was markedly
limited in several functional areas, Jackson’s treatment notes indicated that
Sampson’s mental conditions were being treated and controlled by his medications.
For example, Sampson routinely reported that his medication was helping
“significantly,” that things were going well, and that he was less irritable. Besides
reporting some challenging issues at home relating to his girlfriend’s adult
children, treatment records largely reflect that Sampson’s irritability, mood, and
7
Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Jackson’s
evaluation was inconsistent with treatment notes from Suncoast, we do not address Sampson’s
arguments that the ALJ erred by placing undue weight on the GAF scores.
25
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 26 of 32
anger—the primary mental symptoms Dr. Jackson indicated in his medical
opinion—were largely controlled under the medication Sampson was prescribed.
Although the ALJ relied on observations of Sampson during the hearing, we
do not believe that the ALJ engaged in improper “sit and squirm” jurisprudence by
“subjectively arriv[ing] at an index of traits which he expects the claimant to
manifest at the hearing.” Freeman v. Schweiker, 681 F.2d 727, 731 (11th Cir.
1982). Rather, the ALJ relied on observations of specific aspects of Sampson’s
demeanor that related to the primary symptoms on which Dr. Jackson based his
opinion. And the record shows that the ALJ considered these observations in
conjunction with the medical evidence and did not “impose his observations in lieu
of a consideration of the medical evidence presented.” Norris v. Heckler,
760 F.2d
1154, 1158 (11th Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, the ALJ articulated good cause, supported by substantial
evidence, for giving little weight to Dr. Jackson’s opinion.
D. Residual functional capacity
Next, Sampson argues that, by rejecting nearly every medical opinion in the
record and relying on lay observations during the hearing, the ALJ fabricated the
RFC “out of whole cloth.” Sampson also contends that the ALJ failed to explain
the basis of the RFC, thereby precluding effective judicial review. We disagree on
both counts.
26
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 27 of 32
Although ALJs generally must give substantial or controlling weight to the
opinions of treating physicians, “the ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the
evidence supports a contrary finding.” Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 280 (11th
Cir. 1987). Because the substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give
little weight to the opinions of Dr. Koscho, Dr. Villamagna, and Dr. Jackson, the
ALJ did not need to incorporate their assessments into the RFC.
More broadly, the ALJ adequately explained the basis of the RFC
assessment, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination that
prior to September 11, 2011, Sampson could perform light work with some
additional limitations. In making his RFC finding, the ALJ took into consideration
Sampson’s symptoms for each condition, and the extent to which the symptoms
could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and
other evidence. With regard to Sampson’s physical RFC, the ALJ limited him to
light work that involved no climbing to accommodate (1) the dizziness Sampson
experienced as a symptom of his diabetes; (2) the drowsiness Sampson
experienced due to his hypertension medication; and (3) the fatigue Sampson
experienced. To accommodate Sampson’s osteoarthritis of the knees, the ALJ
limited him to light work that involved no climbing or kneeling. And with regard
to Sampson’s mental RFC, the ALJ found that Sampson had moderate limitations
in social functioning and concentration, persistence, or pace, and imposed
27
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 28 of 32
limitations to account for those limitations. To account for these limitations, the
ALJ limited him to light work that involved simple and routine tasks that involved
no more than occasional interaction with other people.
Apart from the potential additional limitations suggested by Dr. Klein’s
opinion, which should be addressed upon remand, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s determination and that the ALJ adequately explained
the findings supporting each limitation imposed. While the ALJ may have
improperly relied on observations of Sampson during the hearing to reject Dr.
Koscho’s opinion, that error was harmless under the circumstances. Additionally,
the ALJ’s reliance on observations of Sampson’s demeanor during the hearing in
relation to his mental impairments was permissible for the reasons explained
above. Overall, the ALJ properly assessed Sampson’s RFC based on the relevant
evidence (besides Dr. Klein’s evaluation) and formulated an RFC that included all
of the limitations supported by the record.
Sampson also challenges the ALJ’s onset date of September 11, 2011. He
argues that the ALJ should have adopted his alleged onset date because the ALJ’s
RFC for the period of time after September 11, 2011, was consistent with the
limitations indicated by the opinions from Dr. Koscho and Dr. Villamagna—
specifically Sampson’s need to alternate between sitting and standing frequently
during the day. However, Sampson did not present this argument to the district
28
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 29 of 32
court, so we decline to address it for the first time on appeal. See Jones, 190 F.3d
at 1228 (issues not raised before the district court in a social security case are
waived and may not be presented for the first time on appeal).
E. Credibility of Sampson’s testimony
Finally, Sampson contends that the ALJ improperly discredited his
subjective complaints of pain. Credibility determinations are the province of the
ALJ, and we will not disturb a clearly stated credibility determination supported by
substantial evidence. See Mitchell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th
Cir. 2014). “Subjective pain testimony supported by objective medical evidence of
a condition that can reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms of which
claimant complains is sufficient to sustain a finding of disability.” Johns v. Bowen,
821 F.2d 551, 557 (11th Cir. 1987).
The ALJ may discredit a claimant’s subjective testimony so long as the ALJ
provides “explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284
F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002); Holt v. Sullivan,
921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir.
1991). Where the ALJ makes no explicit finding, “the implication must be obvious
to the reviewing court.” Dyer v. Barnhart,
395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Foote v. Chater,
67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995)). “The credibility
determination does not need to cite particular phrases or formulations but it cannot
merely be a broad rejection which is not enough to enable [the district court or this
29
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 30 of 32
Court] to conclude that [the ALJ] considered [his] medical condition as a whole.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Sampson maintains that the ALJ failed to make adequate credibility findings
regarding his complaints of knee pain and psychiatric impairments. With regard to
his knee pain, Sampson testified at the first hearing in September 2009 (before the
ALJ found his complaints of pain credible) that he could sit no longer than thirty
minutes at a time and that he could walk no farther than short distances. With
regard to his mental impairments, Sampson said that he did not get along well with
others, and he reported experiencing anxiety attacks up to four or five times per
month, though less often when he took prescribed medications.
The ALJ observed that Sampson had medical conditions that could
reasonably be expected to cause these symptoms, but that his “statements
concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms” were
not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the RFC before September
2011. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination.
In discounting Sampson’s testimony regarding his knee pain, the ALJ did
not, as Sampson contends, improperly discredit his testimony based solely on a
lack of objective medical evidence. Rather, the ALJ’s decision reflects that he
considered, in addition to the objective medical evidence, the specifics of
Sampson’s testimony at the hearing, Sampson’s daily activities, as reported by
30
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 31 of 32
both Sampson and his girlfriend, and the opinions of his doctors. The ALJ’s
reasons for discrediting Sampson’s testimony were sufficiently clear and supported
by the record. The ALJ’s explanation was more than just a “broad rejection” and
was sufficient to permit review. See Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210.
The ALJ also did not err by discounting Sampson’s testimony regarding his
mental impairments. It appears that the ALJ’s mental RFC broadly accounts for
the limitations suggested by Sampson’s testimony, and Sampson does not identify
any particular aspect of his testimony that was rejected. To the extent Sampson
claims more severe social and mental limitations, the ALJ reasonably discounted
such testimony as unsupported by the objective medical evidence and inconsistent
with Sampson’s reports to Dr. Jackson and with the ALJ’s observations of
Sampson at the hearing. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
credibility finding with regard to Sampson’s mental impairments.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, we conclude that the ALJ failed to provide good
cause supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight to the medical
opinion of Dr. Klein. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court in
part and remand with instructions to remand this case to the Commissioner for
further proceedings regarding Sampson’s eligibility for benefits for the period
before September 11, 2011. We express no opinion regarding Sampson’s
31
Case: 16-10506 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 Page: 32 of 32
eligibility for benefits on remand. We affirm in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED with
instructions.
32
