Patricia Law v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Patricia Wood Law. 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: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 1 of 13

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13583
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cv-00614-TFM

PATRICIA WOOD LAW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(March 7, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 2 of 13

Patricia Wood Law appeals from the district court’s decision to affirm the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for a period of
disability and disability insurance benefits. On appeal, Law contends that the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to give adequate consideration to her
testimony and medical evidence concerning her right shoulder condition. Because
the ALJ made no error, we affirm.
I.

Factual Background

Ms. Law applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
with the Social Security Administration, claiming she had become disabled on
January 24, 2012. After the Commissioner denied her applications, Ms. Law
requested and received a hearing before an ALJ.
A.
The hearing before the ALJ focused on the extent of Ms. Law’s injuries and
their effect on whether Ms. Law could perform during the relevant time period,
which was between her alleged onset date in January 2012 and her date last insured
in December 2012. With respect to her injuries, Ms. Law testified that because of
her diabetes, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis, she experienced great pain, including
in her back, hip, and right shoulder. 1

1

Ms. Law also testified to suffering from memory loss, alopecia, and varicose veins.
2

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 3 of 13

Ms. Law described to the ALJ how she experienced severe pain in her back
and hip four days per week. She explained that this pain was aggravated by
bending over, sitting straight too long, standing too long, or incoming bad weather.
Because of the pain, she testified that she could only stand for thirty minutes, sit
for thirty minutes to an hour, and walk for an hour before needing to take the
pressure off her hip. She took over-the-counter pain relievers and would lay down
with her legs elevated for three to four hours a day to alleviate the pain. In
addition, Ms. Law testified that walking on the treadmill at the gym made her feel
better.
Ms. Law also testified about her shoulder. She explained that her shoulder
began to hurt in 2009 and that in 2012 she was receiving cortisone shots for the
pain. Ms. Law asserted that these shots would provide relief for a day or two, but
the pain would return. She testified that because of her shoulder affliction, it hurt
to lift more than ten pounds and that her right arm was more limited than her left.
Ms. Law had not worked since 2007 when the last client of her in-home
health care business passed away. Her business, which she had operated for
twenty years, required her to lift, turn, and pull patients to bath them and move
them between their beds, wheelchairs, and transportation. She testified that she
could no longer perform this work. But she acknowledged that during the relevant

3

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 4 of 13

time period she could keep her house straightened, cook, shop for groceries, and
attend church.
Ms. Law provided testimony and medical records about her health
conditions before her alleged onset date. She explained that in September 2011
she was diagnosed with arthritis and foot troubles by Dr. Jakes. Dr. Jake’s records
show that Ms. Law complained of pain in her neck, back, shoulders, wrists, hands,
knees, and toes. A physical examination found full range of motion in her joints,
and the doctor diagnosed her with mild osteoarthritis and Morton’s neuroma. Ms.
Law refused prescription medication for her joint pain, so the doctor recommended
she continue taking Tylenol and glucosamine. Dr. Jakes also recommended
physical therapy for her neck and back pain and orthotics for her feet; Ms. Law did
neither because they were too expensive.
The medical records Ms. Law submitted to the ALJ show that in 2012 Ms.
Law occasionally, but not always, reported pain to her physicians. That year, Ms.
Law saw her primary care physician, Dr. Knapp, for various problems including
pain in her neck and back, as well as her right hip, right wrist, and right shoulder.
In January, three days after her alleged onset date, she visited Dr. Knapp
complaining about her back, but denying any muscle or joint pain. At her follow
up appointment in April, Ms. Law reported pain in her right shoulder and that she
could not remember hurting herself. Dr. Knapp gave a physical examination in
4

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 5 of 13

which Ms. Law’s condition appeared consistent with her age. He diagnosed her
right shoulder with osteoarthrosis and administered a cortisone shot. Six months
later, Ms. Law complained of muscle and joint pain, weakness, and fatigue. Dr.
Knapp’s nurse practitioner assessed the cause of these symptoms to be Ms. Law’s
high cholesterol and diabetes. In November, Ms. Law returned to discuss her
worsening diabetes and admitted to not taking her medicine every day. At this
visit, Ms. Law denied any muscle or joint pain.
Ms. Law also submitted medical evidence from after December 31, 2012,
her date last insured. These records reflect that in April 2013, she denied
experiencing muscle or joint pain to Dr. Knapp. Just over a year later, in May
2014, Ms. Law saw Dr. Walcott for right shoulder and arm pain. She reported to
Dr. Walcott that she had experienced “right shoulder and arm pain for probably the
last couple of years getting worse.” After an MRI, Dr. Walcott diagnosed Ms. Law
with a torn rotator cuff. He recommended that Ms. Law receive shoulder
injections and surgery. Ms. Law received one shoulder injection. Although she
indicated that she would schedule the surgery, there is no evidence in the record
that the surgery occurred.
In addition to Ms. Law’s testimony and medical records, the ALJ heard
testimony from Renee Smith, a vocational expert (“VE”), about the availability of
jobs for Ms. Law. The ALJ posed a hypothetical to the VE about an individual
5

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 6 of 13

with Ms. Law’s age, education, and work background. This hypothetical person
could move 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, but was limited by
the right upper extremity. The person could no more than on a frequent basis reach
laterally or out from the body on the right, and could only occasionally push, pull,
and reach overhead on the right. The VE testified that this hypothetical person
could not perform Ms. Law’s past relevant work as a caregiver, but could function
as a hospital cleaner, broom bundler, or crate liner.
B.
After the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision finding Ms. Law was not
disabled in 2012. The ALJ’s decision followed the five step process detailed in the
social security regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). First, the ALJ found
that Ms. Law had not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period from
her alleged onset date through her date last insured. Second, the ALJ found that
Ms. Law had the following severe impairments: mild degenerative disc disease and
scoliosis, diabetes mellitus, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. The ALJ found other
nonsevere impairments, including osteopenia, hyperlipidemia, a history of tobacco
abuse with lung nodules, and complaints of chest pain. Third, the ALJ found that
Ms. Law did not have an impairment, or combination of impairments, that met or
medically equaled the severity of one listed in Appendix 1. 2 The ALJ stated that

2

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
6

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 7 of 13

the combined effect of all Ms. Law’s impairments, regardless of severity, was
taken into account in determining her residual functional capacity (“RFC”).
Fourth, the ALJ found that Ms. Law had the RFC to perform a range of medium
work and that she could not perform any past relevant work. With respect to her
RFC, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Law could lift and carry up to 50 pounds
occasionally and 25 pounds frequently. Within these exertional limitations, the
ALJ determined that Ms. Law could only occasionally push and pull with her right
upper extremity, only occasionally reach overhead, and no more than frequently
reach laterally out from the right side of her body.
In reaching this RFC determination, the ALJ considered Ms. Law’s
symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms reasonably could be accepted as
consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. The ALJ first
noted that Ms. Law stopped working because her client died and that she claimed
her condition did not become severe enough to keep her from working for roughly
five years. The ALJ considered Dr. Jake’s and Dr. Knapp’s records. More
specifically, the ALJ discussed Dr. Knapp’s diagnosis of osteoarthrosis of the right
shoulder and its treatment by cortisone shot. Although Ms. Law testified that she
was totally disabled during 2012, the ALJ was surprised to find no indication of
restrictions placed on her by any of her physicians. Based on this discrepancy, the
ALJ found Ms. Law’s testimony to be not entirely credible, even though her
7

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 8 of 13

impairments “could possibly be expected to cause to some degree the symptoms
alleged.”
The ALJ then evaluated the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Ms.
Law’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit her functioning. Here
the ALJ found Ms. Law had failed to present evidence showing she was incapable
of performing medium work. He considered that she lived alone, took care of her
house and herself, shopped for groceries, and regularly attended church. Further,
the ALJ noted that, according to the medical evidence, Ms. Law’s treatment in
2012 was “very limited and essentially routine and conservative in nature with no
evidence of significant pain management efforts.” The ALJ considered the lone
cortisone shot and the worsening of her diabetes, but held that the records overall
showed “improvement and good function in daily life.” The ALJ concluded the
RFC analysis by finding that Ms. Law’s impairments were “not as limiting as
alleged.”
Fifth, the ALJ found that Ms. Law had acquired skills at her previous job
that were transferable to other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national
economy. Based on the VE’s testimony, the ALJ found that a person with Ms.
Law’s background and RFC could perform the work of hospital cleaner, broom
bundler, and crate liner. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Law was not disabled
at any time from January 24, 2012 to December 31, 2012.
8

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 9 of 13

C.
Ms. Law appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Social Security Administration
Appeals Council, which found no reason to review and denied her request.3 Ms.
Law then filed an action in district court seeking review of the ALJ’s decision. A
magistrate judge affirmed the ALJ’s decision as supported by substantial evidence.
This appeal followed.
II.

Standard of Review

Our review is limited in social security cases. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “We
review the Commissioner’s decision to determine if it is supported by substantial
evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). We may not reweigh the evidence or decide facts for
ourselves—the Commissioner’s decision deserves deference “even if the proof
preponderates against it.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We review an ALJ’s credibility determination
concerning a claimant’s complaints of pain and other subjective symptoms for
3

Ms. Law submitted to the Appeals Council new medical evidence from Dr. Knapp,
dated September 18, 2013. The Appeals Council found it irrelevant because her date last insured
was in December 2012. Ms. Law raises no argument on appeal that the Appeals Council erred in
refusing to consider this evidence, so we do not address this medical evidence further.
9

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 10 of 13

substantial evidence supporting the determination. Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d
837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992).
III.

Legal Analysis

Ms. Law’s appeal argues that the ALJ’s decision is unsupported by
substantial evidence for three reasons. First, she argues that the ALJ erred by
omitting any specific findings relating to the severity of Ms. Law’s right shoulder
condition. Second, she argues that the ALJ erred by forgoing any reference to Ms.
Law’s testimony about her right shoulder. Third, she argues that the ALJ erred by
ignoring the medical evidence provided by Dr. Walcott. We disagree.
A.
Ms. Law argues that the ALJ erred by failing to make specific findings about
the severity of her right shoulder condition. We understand this to be an argument
about the sufficiency of the impairment findings in step two of the ALJ’s
sequential evaluation. We have held that step two acts as a filter: “the ALJ must
determine if the claimant has any severe impairment.” Jamison v. Bowen, 814
F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Here the ALJ found Ms. Law
had several severe impairments, including osteoarthritis. 4 Because step two
requires nothing more, we discern no error.

4

In the ALJ’s RFC determination, he explicitly considered Dr. Knapp’s diagnosis of
osteoarthrosis of the shoulder. Thus, the ALJ considered Ms. Law’s right shoulder condition a
severe impairment.
10

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 11 of 13

B.
In a related argument, Ms. Law asserts that the ALJ failed to adequately
consider her testimony regarding her right shoulder. This argument is without
merit. The ALJ is not required to explicitly mention every piece of evidence so
long as the decision considers the claimant’s medical condition as a whole. See
Mitchell v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014). In
making the RFC determination, the ALJ considered Ms. Law’s right shoulder. The
ALJ discussed her limited ability to push, pull, and reach overhead and laterally
with her “right upper extremity.” The ALJ also mentioned the medical evidence
from Dr. Knapp concerning her cortisone injection in 2012 when finding Ms.
Law’s testimony about her pain during that period less than credible. Because the
ALJ took account of Ms. Law’s shoulder in his assessment of her medical
condition as a whole, there is no reversible error even if the ALJ never explicitly
mentioned her testimony about her shoulder.
C.
Ms. Law also argues that the ALJ erred in omitting references to Dr.
Walcott’s medical records, focusing on the note in the doctor’s file that Ms. Law
had shoulder pain for “probably the last couple of years getting worse.” A
claimant is eligible for benefits “where she demonstrates disability on or before the
last date for which she was insured.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211
11

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 12 of 13

(11th Cir. 2005). Ms. Law’s date last insured was December 31, 2012. She first
visited Dr. Walcott eighteen months later in the summer of 2014. Dr. Walcott’s
treatment of Ms. Law in 2014 does not establish whether she was disabled as of
December 31, 2012.
Though Ms. Law did report to Dr. Walcott that her shoulder had been
afflicted for “probably the last couple of years getting worse,” Dr. Knapp’s records
from 2012 belie this assertion. As noted by the ALJ, Ms. Law complained to her
physicians of right shoulder pain only once during 2012. Evidence of right
shoulder pain does not appear again in Dr. Knapp’s records of Ms. Law’s multiple
visits during the relevant time period. As such, there is substantial evidence to
support the ALJ’s assessment of Ms. Law’s RFC.
Ms. Law further contends that the ALJ’s omission of Dr. Walcott’s
diagnosis of a torn rotator cuff is reversible error, citing to this Court’s holding in
Vega v. Commissioner of Social Security, 265 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2001). In Vega
we recognized that “remands are required when an ALJ fails to consider properly a
claimant’s condition despite evidence in the record of the diagnosis.” 265 F.3d at
1219-20. However, the ALJ in that case “ignored the symptoms” of Ms. Vega’s
chronic fatigue syndrome. Id. Ms. Law’s shoulder symptoms, by contrast, were
expressly considered multiple times in the ALJ’s RFC determination. 5 Thus, Ms.

5

Ms. Law concedes this point in her brief before this Court.
12

Case: 16-13583

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 13 of 13

Law’s reliance on Vega is unavailing, and the ALJ did not commit reversible error
by failing to reference Dr. Walcott in his decision.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.

13