Freeman Stone v. Commissioner of Social Securit

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Freeman W. Stone. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-11763

Date Filed: 01/04/2013

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11763
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00013-MP-GRJ

FREEMAN W. STONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 4, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The crux of this appeal is whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”),

Case: 12-11763

Date Filed: 01/04/2013

Page: 2 of 5

in denying appellant Freeman W. Stone’s application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405, 1382, erred by
relying on the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“Grids”) to determine whether
appellant was disabled, rather than the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”).
We find no error, and because substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s
determination that appellant was not disabled at any time through the date of the
ALJ’s decision, we affirm.
In a social security case, we review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo,
and its factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial
evidence. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007).
Under this standard, “[i]f the [agency]’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence we must affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.” Miles v.
Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1996).
The Social Security regulations establish a five-step, “sequential” process
for determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(1).
Throughout the process, the burden is on the claimant to introduce evidence in
support of his application for benefits. Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276
(11th Cir. 2003). If an ALJ finds a claimant disabled or not disabled at any given
step, the ALJ does not go on to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). At the
2

Case: 12-11763

Date Filed: 01/04/2013

Page: 3 of 5

first step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in
substantial gainful activity. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(i), (b). At the second step, the
ALJ must determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments for
which the claimant allegedly suffers is “severe.” Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c). At
the third step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant’s severe impairments
meet or medically equal a listed impairment. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (d). The
ALJ must then determine, at step four, whether the claimant has the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work. Id.
§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv), (e)-(f). “[RFC] is an assessment . . . of a claimant’s remaining
ability to do work despite his impairments.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436,
1440 (11th Cir. 1997).
At step five, once a claimant proves that he can no longer perform his past
relevant work, “the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the existence of
other jobs in the national economy which, given the claimant's impairments, the
claimant can perform.” Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999).
One way for the Commissioner to carry this burden is through an application of
the Grids. Id. at 1229; see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2. The Grids provide
an algorithm to determine a claimant's ability to engage in employment other than
their past work based on factors such as a person's age, education, previous
3

Case: 12-11763

Date Filed: 01/04/2013

Page: 4 of 5

employment, and maximum physical capabilities. Gibson v. Heckler, 762 F.2d
1516, 1520 (11th Cir.1985).
Exclusive reliance on the Grids is not appropriate when the “claimant is
unable to perform a full range of work at a given residual functional level or when
a claimant has non-exertional impairments that significantly limit basic work
skills.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004); see also
Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 1002-1003 (11th Cir. 1987). Each variable on the
appropriate Grid must “accurately [describe] the claimant’s situation.” Walker,
826 F.2d at 1003. If either of the above conditions exists, an ALJ is required to
consult a VE. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1242. A medical condition that can reasonably
be remedied by medication “is not disabling.” Dawkins v. Bowen, 848 F.2d 1211,
1213 (11th Cir. 1988).
When looking specifically at non-exertional limitations, an ALJ “need only
determine whether [the] nonexertional impairments significantly limit [basic] work
skills,” which includes a wide range of work at a given work level. Phillips, 357
F.3d at 1243. If the ALJ determines that nonexertional limitations do not
significantly limit basic work skills at the assigned work level, the ALJ may rely
on the Grids to determine if a claimant is disabled; otherwise, the ALJ must
consult a VE. Id.
4

Case: 12-11763

Date Filed: 01/04/2013

Page: 5 of 5

Appellant challenges the ALJ’s reliance, at step five, on the Grids to
determine that he was not disabled. The ALJ considered the medical evidence on
appellant’s non-exertional limitations. He ultimately determined that appellant
could perform basic work activities in a regular work setting, “without significant
interference from his non-exertional limitations.” The ALJ also found that his
non-exertional limitations were manageable with conservative medical care and
medications. These finding were supported by medical testimony and other
evidence. Accordingly, the ALJ was justified in relying solely on the Grids.
AFFIRMED.

5