Brian Edward Reid v. Commissioner of Soc Sec
Filing
UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:11-cv-02408-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999388041].. [13-1480]
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
Filed: 07/02/2014
Pg: 1 of 12
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1480
BRIAN EDWARD REID,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:11-cv-02408-TMC)
Argued:
May 15, 2014
Decided:
July 2, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion.
Judge Niemeyer wrote the
opinion, in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Duncan joined.
ARGUED: Beatrice E. Whitten, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for
Appellant.
Sarah
Van
Arsdale
Berry,
SOCIAL
SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; John Jay Lee, Regional Chief
Counsel, Kirsten A. Westerland, Assistant Regional Counsel,
Dorrelyn K. Dietrich, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
Filed: 07/02/2014
Pg: 2 of 12
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
Filed: 07/02/2014
Pg: 3 of 12
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
Brian
Edward
Reid,
who
suffers
from
degenerative
disc
disease, applied for Social Security disability benefits.
The
Commissioner of Social Security denied Reid’s claim, and the
district court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.
On appeal, Reid contends (1) that the Commissioner ignored
several
years
Commissioner
of
his
failed
to
multiple impairments.
medical
consider
history
the
and
combined
(2)
that
effects
of
the
his
Because we find that the Commissioner’s
decision was based on all the medical evidence and that the
Commissioner
did
indeed
consider
Reid’s
impairments
in
combination, we affirm.
I
Reid filed for disability benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434, on December 7, 2006,
alleging that he became unable to work on June 4, 2004, when,
during work, he fell off of a roof.
Reid’s medical history, as documented by the record, shows
that, prior to his fall, on November 18, 2003, Reid visited Dr.
George Khoury for his chronic neck pain.
Dr. Khoury diagnosed
Reid with cervical disc disease and, in December 2003, performed
a two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.
3
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
Filed: 07/02/2014
Pg: 4 of 12
When Reid fell off the roof on June 4, 2004, he suffered
two spinal fractures.
After he was discharged from the hospital
four days later, he still complained of pain and returned to the
doctor on multiple occasions in the subsequent months.
Although
Dr. Khoury noted on September 9, 2004, that Reid was “feeling
better” and that he had “minimal complaints,” on January 13,
2005,
he
nonetheless
improvement”
and
appropriate.
2005,
and,
progressing
medication.
reported
decided
that
that
Reid
a
had
“not
posterior
seen
fusion
any
was
Dr. Khoury performed the procedure on February 11,
by
March
well”
29,
and
2005,
was
noted
cutting
that
back
on
Reid
his
was
use
“really
of
pain
On May 5, 2005, Dr. Todd Joye -- another doctor
Reid was seeing for pain -- found that the fusion surgery “was
very
successful
and
ha[d]
nearly
resolved
[Reid’s]
thoracic
pain” and that steroid injections “help[ed] him tremendously in
regards to his back pain.”
reported
that
Reid’s
And on November 23, 2005, Dr. Khoury
“original
thoracic
pain
ha[d]
totally
resolved.”
Several months later, on March 24, 2006, Reid began seeing
another
doctor,
Dr.
Kerri
Kolehma,
complaining
of
“severe
bilateral leg pain” that was aggravated by walking, difficulty
using his left ankle, and numbness in several of his toes.
Dr.
Kolehma’s physical exam revealed that Reid had “[n]ormal muscle
bulk and tone,” and Reid’s tests yielded normal results, except
4
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
Filed: 07/02/2014
for some loss of reflexes.
Reid’s
leg
pain
was
Pg: 5 of 12
Subsequent testing revealed that
related
to
vascular
problems.
Reid
underwent an iliac artery angioplasty on May 30, 2006, performed
by Dr. Kevin Beach.
By July 10, 2006, Dr. Beach found that Reid
was “doing amazingly well” and “appear[ed] to be a changed man,”
noting that he had lost weight and was exercising.
On October 25, 2006, Reid again visited Dr. Khoury, whom he
had not seen since February.
“at
maximum
medical
Dr. Khoury concluded that Reid was
improvement
and
ha[d]
essentially
total
disability to the lumbar spine because of his fracture.”
He
also concluded that Reid was “not able to return to any kind of
work activity at this point.”
A few months later, however, on
January 17, 2007, when Reid visited Dr. Kolehma, he said that he
felt “like a million bucks” after changing drugs.
He reported
that he had been cleaning his home and working out.
On April 11, 2007, Reid visited Dr. William Kee, a clinical
psychologist, for help with his anxiety and pain management.
Reid told Dr. Kee that he cooked on a daily basis and cared for
his 12-year-old daughter.
In September 2007, Reid began seeing Drs. Marc Dubick and
Tony Azzolino, who noted that Reid had severe pain below the
fusion site and weakness in the lower lumbar area. Dr. Dubick
administered an epidural injection and Reid experienced “total
5
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
pain relief.”
Filed: 07/02/2014
Pg: 6 of 12
Dr. Dubick reported on December 17, 2007, that
Reid’s “functional level ha[d] increased dramatically.”
Reid continued to go to Dr. Dubick from January 2008 to
July 2009 for injection therapy and pain medication, and during
this
period,
Dr.
Dubick
reported
that
Reid
was
“doing
very
well,” “gardening and doing his normal activities,” “leading a
normal lifestyle,” and “showing some improvement,” although Reid
sometimes
complained
of
“significant
“quite a bit of discomfort.”
pain”
and
experienced
In July 2009, Reid suffered a fall
that exacerbated his back pain, but the next month, on August
19, 2009, Dr. Dubick noted that Reid’s “injuries [were] markedly
improved
from
his
fall”
and
that
his
back
discomfort
was
“minor.”
Finally, several times in 2008, Reid visited Summerville
Behavioral Health, complaining of obsessive-compulsive disorder
symptoms and panic attacks.
Reid filed his claim for disability benefits on December 7,
2006, which was denied.
conducted
before
an
September 11, 2009.
from
several
Following his request, a hearing was
administrative
law
judge
(“ALJ”)
on
While the ALJ did find that Reid suffered
medical
impairments,
he
did
not
find
credible
Reid’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and effects
of
his
pain
and
other
symptoms
in
light
of
the
objective
evidence of his residual functionality and positive response to
6
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
treatment.
Filed: 07/02/2014
Pg: 7 of 12
Accordingly, the ALJ found that because Reid could
engage in sedentary work, he “ha[d] not been under a disability
. . . from June 4, 2004 through the date of this decision.”
On
review
of
the
ALJ’s
decision,
the
Appeals
Council
remanded the case, ordering the ALJ to consider the evidence
from June 4, 2004, forward, which the ALJ had not done because
he thought that res judicata applied to the 2004-2006 period.
The
Appeals
effect
of
Council
Reid’s
also
instructed
mental
the
impairments
ALJ
to
and
consider
obesity
on
the
his
disability claim.
The ALJ conducted a second hearing on January 18, 2011,
after which he again denied Reid benefits.
Reid’s
severe
impairments
included
The ALJ found that
adjustment
disorder
and
a
history of obesity, in addition to degenerative disc disease.
Nonetheless, the ALJ found that Reid “did not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one
of
the
listed
Appendix 1.”
“ha[d]
impairments
in
20
CFR
Part
404,
Subpart
P,
In making that finding, the ALJ explained that he
considered
the
combined
effects
of
the
claimant’s
impairments, both severe and non-severe, and ha[d] determined
that the findings related to them [were] not at least equal in
severity
to”
a
listed
impairment.
After
recounting
Reid’s
medical history in substantial detail, the ALJ found that Reid
7
Appeal: 13-1480
had
Doc: 37
the
Filed: 07/02/2014
residual
functional
Pg: 8 of 12
capacity
to
perform
unskilled
sedentary work and thus was not disabled.
Reid again appealed to the Appeals Council, which largely
adopted
the
ALJ’s
findings
and
conclusions,
including
the
findings that Reid’s impairments did not meet or medically equal
in
severity
a
listed
impairment
and
that
Reid’s
subjective
complaints were not credible in light of his residual functional
capacity.
found
that
Differing from the ALJ, however, the Appeals Council
Reid’s
adjustment
disorder
was
not
severe,
and,
therefore, that Reid retained the ability to perform “the full
range of sedentary work.”
The Appeals Council’s decision was
the final decision of the Commissioner.
Reid
commenced
this
Commissioner’s decision.
action,
seeking
review
of
the
He argued, among other things, that
(1) the decision was not based on substantial evidence because
the ALJ failed to consider the evidence between 2004 and 2006
and (2) the ALJ had not evaluated the combined effects of Reid’s
multiple impairments.
With respect to the substantial evidence
argument, a magistrate judge found that Reid had failed to show
how he was harmed by any failure on the part of the ALJ to
specifically cite evidence from the 2004-2006 period and that,
in any event, the record indicated that the ALJ and Appeals
Council had indeed considered all the evidence before them.
magistrate
judge
also
found
that
8
the
ALJ
had
The
explicitly
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
considered
Thus,
Filed: 07/02/2014
and
the
discussed
Pg: 9 of 12
combination
judge
magistrate
Reid’s
of
recommended
impairments.
affirming
the
Commissioner.
The
district
recommendation
and
court
followed
affirmed,
the
adopting
magistrate
the
magistrate
judge’s
judge’s
report and providing additional explanation for its decision.
Reid v. Astrue, No. 6:11-2408-TMC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17815
(D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2013).
This appeal followed.
II
Reid raises two issues on appeal.
First, he argues that
“[t]he Commissioner’s decision to deny [his] benefits was not
based on the entire record.”
Specifically, he criticizes the
ALJ’s discussion of his medical history in the period from 2004
to 2006, noting that “[t]he ALJ referenced evidence from the
period 2004 to 2006 just a few times; and he never mentioned
objective
findings
which
supported
Mr.
Reid’s
claims.”
He
contends that this “[f]ailure to consider all relevant evidence
precludes a proper substantial evidence test analysis.”
Reid
argues
meaningful
that
“the
analysis
of
Commissioner
the
combined
impairments.”
9
failed
effect
to
of
Second,
provide
his
any
multiple
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
Filed: 07/02/2014
Pg: 10 of 12
We review the district court’s judgment de novo, applying
the same standard of review applied by the district court, and
thus
we
review
evidence.
2005)
the
Commissioner’s
decision
for
substantial
See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir.
(per
curiam).
While
the
Commissioner’s
decision
must
“contain a statement of the case, in understandable language,
setting
forth
a
Commissioner’s
discussion
determination
of
the
and
evidence,
the
reason
and
or
stating
reasons
the
upon
which it is based,” 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1), “there is no rigid
requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of
evidence in his decision,” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); accord Russell v. Chater, No. 942371, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17254, at *8 (4th Cir. July 7, 1995)
(per curiam) (explaining that this Court has not “establish[ed]
an
inflexible
rule
requiring
an
exhaustive
point-by-point
discussion in all cases”).
After carefully reviewing the record in the present case,
we
conclude
that
the
statutory requirements.
Commissioner’s
decision
satisfied
the
The Commissioner, through the ALJ and
Appeals Council, stated that the whole record was considered,
and, absent evidence to the contrary, we take her at her word.
See Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir. 2005)
(“[O]ur general practice, which we see no reason to depart from
here, is to take a lower tribunal at its word when it declares
10
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
Filed: 07/02/2014
Pg: 11 of 12
that it has considered a matter”).
Moreover, the record shows
that the ALJ’s decision, on which the Commissioner’s decision
was based, specifically referenced Reid’s “history of thoracic
and
lumbar
fusion,”
noting
that
“treatment
notes
from
the
relevant period document that the claimant was responding well
to treatment with minimal complaints.”
This finding -- which
relates to the time period that Reid claims the Commissioner
ignored -- is amply supported by the record.
Indeed, Reid has
failed to point to any specific piece of evidence not considered
by the Commissioner that might have changed the outcome of his
disability claim.
decision
was
As such, we conclude that the Commissioner’s
based
on
the
entire
record
and
supported
by
substantial evidence.
Reid’s other argument -- that the Commissioner failed to
consider his impairments in combination -- is similarly without
merit.
To be sure, an ALJ must “adequately explain his or her
evaluation
of
impairments.”
the
combined
effects
of
[a
claimant’s]
Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir. 1989).
But in the present case, the ALJ did consider Reid’s impairments
in combination.
After meticulously describing why Reid’s three
severe impairments -- his degenerative disc disease, adjustment
disorder,
disabling,
and
the
obesity
--
ALJ
then
did
not,
individually,
considered
11
whether
qualify
these
as
three
Appeal: 13-1480
Doc: 37
Filed: 07/02/2014
Pg: 12 of 12
impairments, cumulatively, would “equal in severity” a listed
impairment:
[T]he undersigned has considered the combined effects
of the claimant’s impairments, both severe and nonsevere, and has determined that the findings related
to them are not at least equal in severity to those
described in Listings 1.00, 4.00, 11.00, and 12.00.
In
this
consideration,
the
undersigned
has
specifically considered the cumulative effects of the
impairments on the claimant’s ability to work.
See
also Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47 (4th Cir. 1989). The
undersigned notes that the claimant’s heart condition
was asymptomatic despite his history of obesity. Even
with consideration of the combined effects of the
claimant’s obesity, treatment records fail to indicate
that the claimant’s degenerative disc disease status
post fusion resulted in an inability to ambulate or
perform fine or gross motor movements effectively.
The claimant’s physical impairments obviously affected
his mental health condition.
Nevertheless, when
considered in conjunction, no further limitation in
the claimant’s mental health condition, other than
those discussed above, are warranted.
(Emphasis added).
that
Reid
impairments
“did
not
have
that
met
or
impairments.”
that
Relying on this analysis, the ALJ concluded
the
combinatorial
an
medically
(Emphasis added).
Commissioner
effects
of
impairment
equaled
one
combination
of
the
of
listed
It is thus readily apparent
specifically
Reid’s
or
various
contemplated
impairments
and,
the
in
doing so, more than satisfied the statutory requirements and our
guidance set forth in Walker.
AFFIRMED
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?