Matthew Romeo v. Commissioner of Social Securit

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Matthew John Romeo. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11758

Date Filed: 04/24/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11758
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cv-00872-JBT

MATTHEW JOHN ROMEO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 24, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11758

Date Filed: 04/24/2017

Page: 2 of 5

Matthew Romeo appeals the district court’s order affirming the
administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of disability insurance benefits, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On appeal, Romeo argues that the ALJ improperly
discounted the opinions of Dr. Gerald Hodan and Drs. Felix and Milagros Subervi.
Romeo argues that their opinions are fully supported by the record, including
Romeo’s self-reported problems and observations by professionals. He contends
that the record clearly demonstrates that he is not able to maintain employment on
a regular basis and that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s denial of
benefits. After a review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
affirm.
In social security appeals, we review the decision of an ALJ as the
Commissioner’s final decision when the ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals
Council denies review of the ALJ’s decision. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274,
1278 (11th Cir. 2001). We review de novo the legal principles upon which the
ALJ’s decision is based, but the ALJ’s factual findings are conclusive if supported
by substantial evidence. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260
(11th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla and is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir.
2004) (quotation omitted). Even if the evidence preponderates against the factual
2

Case: 16-11758

Date Filed: 04/24/2017

Page: 3 of 5

findings made by the Commissioner, we must affirm if the decision reached is
supported by substantial evidence. Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260. We will not decide
facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the
Commissioner. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005).
The ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical
opinions and the reasons therefor. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d
1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). The ALJ must give the medical opinions of treating
physicians substantial or considerable weight unless good cause is shown to the
contrary. Id.; see also Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 280 (11th Cir. 1987)
(stating that the ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a
contrary finding). Good cause exists when: (1) the opinion was not bolstered by
the evidence; (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) the opinion was
conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records. Winschel, 631
F.3d at 1179. An ALJ must generally give more weight to the opinion of a doctor
who has examined a claimant, and the longer a treating source has treated a
claimant, the more weight their opinion is given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), (2).
A doctor who examines a claimant only once is not considered a treating
physician. McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987).
An ALJ must consider the opinions of non-examining physicians, including
state agency psychological consultants. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2). The
3

Case: 16-11758

Date Filed: 04/24/2017

Page: 4 of 5

weight to be given to a non-examining physician’s opinion depends, among other
things, on the extent to which it is consistent with other evidence. See id.
§ 404.1527(e)(2)(ii); see also Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158, 1160 (holding that the
ALJ did not err in relying on a consulting physician’s opinion where it was
consistent with the medical evidence and findings of the examining physician).
The opinions of non-examining physicians are entitled to little weight when
compared to examining physicians, however. Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 280. The
more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, the more
weight is given to that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).
A medical opinion that a claimant is disabled constitutes an opinion on an
issue reserved to the Commissioner and is not controlling. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1527(d)(1). Factors that an ALJ considers in evaluating a medical opinion
include whether the physician examined or treated the claimant, the length of the
treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the supportability and
consistency of the opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c).
A claimant’s daily activities may be considered in evaluating and
discrediting complaints of disabling pain. Harwell v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 1292,
1293 (11th Cir. 1984). In Harwell, we held that the ALJ properly considered the
claimant’s use of pain medication and his daily activities in finding that his
allegation of constant and severe pain was outweighed by other evidence. Id.
4

Case: 16-11758

Date Filed: 04/24/2017

Page: 5 of 5

The ALJ provided sufficient reasons for discounting the opinions of Dr.
Hodan and Drs. Subervi and Subervi because she stated with particularity the
weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons why some were given
more weight than others, as required. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Moreover,
none of these doctors were treating physicians because they each only saw Romeo
once. McSwain, 814 F.2d at 619. Even if they were treating physicians, the ALJ
established good cause for discounting their opinions because their reported
observations from examining Romeo contradicted their determinations that Romeo
was markedly impaired. As to the final conclusion from Drs. Subervi and Subervi
that Romeo would find it difficult to hold a full-time job, that issue is reserved to
the Commissioner and was not entitled to any weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).
Moreover, the remainder of the record evidence did not support the marked
limitations found by Dr. Hodan and Drs. Subervi and Subervi. Particularly,
Romeo made multiple visits to Directions for Mental Health, whose records
indicated that despite his diagnoses, his behavior and affect were evaluated as
essentially normal each time and his global assessment of functioning score
improved with consistent medication.
AFFIRMED.

5