Elana Muniz v. Commissioner of Social Securit

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Elana Natal Muniz. 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: 17-12100

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-12100
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cv-02242-AAS

ELANA NATAL MUNIZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 27, 2017)
Before HULL, MARTIN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Elana Muniz appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for supplemental

Case: 17-12100

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 2 of 7

security income (“SSI”) benefits. Muniz argues that the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) who heard her case erred by substituting his own opinion for medical
opinions stating that her mental limitations were moderate to severe. After careful
review, we affirm the district court. 1
I.
Muniz filed an application for SSI benefits on April 26, 2012, alleging
mental and physical disabilities beginning from September 1, 2009. After her
claim and her request for reconsideration were both denied, she asked for a
hearing. At her hearing in front of an ALJ, she amended her claim of disability
onset date to be January 1, 2013.
The ALJ denied Muniz’s claim. The ALJ found Muniz had severe physical
impairments, including degenerative disc and joint disease and systemic lupus
erythematosus. However, the ALJ found that some of Muniz’s other claimed
impairments, including insomnia, headaches, depression, and anxiety, were not
supported by the record as causing anything more than minimal limitations. In
making this finding, the ALJ pointed to more recent physical exams that found
Muniz “had intact memory, judgment, and insight; normal mood and affect; and
appropriate insight and judgment.” The ALJ also afforded “some weight” to
evaluations produced by Disability Determination Services (“DDS”) psychological
1

The parties consented to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. We refer to the magistrate
judge’s order as that of the district court.
2

Case: 17-12100

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 3 of 7

consultants and global assessment of functioning (“GAF”) scores produced by Dr.
Suman Bhat, noting that some of the evidence predated the amended alleged onset
date and some was otherwise contradicted by the record.
The ALJ found that Muniz had “the residual functional capacity [“RFC”] to
perform light work . . . with an occasional (1/3 of the day) limitation for lifting
above shoulder height and for bending, stooping, crouching, and climbing.” In
making his RFC determination, the ALJ did not specifically reference Muniz’s
claimed mental impairments. The ALJ found that Muniz could no longer perform
her previous work, housecleaning, but could work as a small products assembler,
produce inspector, or laundry sorter. As a result, the ALJ found that Muniz did not
qualify for SSI benefits.
The Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied Muniz’s
request for review. She appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, which affirmed. This appeal followed.
II.
When the Appeals Council denies review of the ALJ’s decision, we review
the ALJ’s decision as the Commissioner’s final decision. Doughty v. Apfel, 245
F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). We review de novo the ALJ’s application of
legal principles. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam). “However, we review the resulting decision only to determine whether it
3

Case: 17-12100

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 4 of 7

is supported by substantial evidence.” Id. “Substantial evidence is something
more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395
F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). Under this
standard, if a reasonable person would accept the evidence “as adequate to support
a conclusion,” we must affirm. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. “This limited review
precludes deciding the facts anew, making credibility determinations, or reweighing the evidence.” Id.
III.
Muniz argues that the ALJ erred “by substituting his opinion for
uncontroverted medical opinion evidence” of her mental impairments.
In particular, Muniz says that the ALJ did not afford sufficient weight to the 2012
evaluations of the two DDS consultants, which found Muniz had moderate
limitations based on her mental impairments. Muniz also argues that the ALJ
assigned too much weight to the 2013 GAF scores from Dr. Bhat. Finally, Muniz
argues that it was inappropriate for the ALJ to “disregard all medical opinion
evidence of record and arrive at a mental [RFC] assessment finding, based on his
own review of the medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, and his
observations of the claimant.”
To evaluate disability claims, the ALJ uses “a five-step, sequential
evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. Winschel v.
4

Case: 17-12100

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 5 of 7

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). The second step of
this process requires the ALJ to determine “whether the claimant has a severe
impairment or combination of impairments.” Id. At this step, an impairment is not
considered severe “only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal
that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to
work, irrespective of age, education or work experience.” McDaniel v. Bowen,
800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986). At step four, the ALJ then considers the
combined effects of all of the claimant’s impairments and determines her RFC.
Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 1001 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).
Medical opinions, including physicians’ statements on the nature and
severity of the claimant’s impairments, may support the ALJ’s determination of
whether a claimant suffers from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(a)(1) &
(b). When weighing each medical opinion, the ALJ must consider whether the
doctor has examined the claimant; the doctor’s relationship with the claimant; the
medical evidence supporting the doctor’s opinion; how consistent the doctor’s
opinion is with the record as a whole; and the doctor’s specialization. Id.
§ 416.927(c).
Absent good cause, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion
“substantial or considerable weight.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440
(11th Cir. 1997). Good cause exists “when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion
5

Case: 17-12100

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 6 of 7

was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or
(3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s
own medical records.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (quotation omitted). “The ALJ
must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a
treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” Lewis, 125 F.3d at
1440.
The ALJ did not err in weighing the evidentiary value of the DDS consultant
evaluations or Dr. Bhat’s GAF scores. The ALJ gave only “some weight” to the
DDS consultant evaluations because neither consultant personally examined Muniz
and both evaluations predated her alleged amended onset date. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.927(c). In addition, the ALJ found that the DDS consultant evaluations were
contradicted by other evidence in the record, specifically reports from Muniz’s
2013 physical examinations. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. The ALJ also gave
only “some weight” to Dr. Bhat’s GAF scores. The ALJ explained that GAF
scores are “just one tool used by clinicians to develop the clinical picture” and
“cannot be used in isolation to make a disability decision.” But because Dr. Bhat
personally examined Muniz, the ALJ considered the GAF scores along with the
other evidence in the record, and could appropriately discount them to the extent
they conflicted with other evidence. See id. Because the ALJ clearly articulated

6

Case: 17-12100

Date Filed: 11/27/2017

Page: 7 of 7

reasons for assigning weight to this evidence, there was no error. See Lewis, 125
F.3d at 1440.
The ALJ also did not inappropriately substitute his own opinion for
uncontroverted medical testimony. Instead, the ALJ relied on a number of
psychiatric evaluations in 2012 and 2013 in which Muniz’s treating physicians
described her as having only mild symptoms. The ALJ also pointed to physical
examinations in 2013 that found “she had intact memory, judgment, and insight;
normal mood and affect; and appropriate insight and judgment.” Precluded from
reweighing the evidence, we find this adequate to support a conclusion that
Muniz’s mental impairments were only mildly limiting. See Moore, 405 F.3d at
1211.
While Muniz has identified medical opinion evidence in the record that
supports her claim of mental impairments, we conclude that the ALJ’s
determination that Muniz’s mental impairments were not severe and would cause
only minimal limitations was supported by substantial evidence. We therefore
affirm the district court’s dismissal.
AFFIRMED.

7