Patricia Salyer v. Commissioner of Social Securi

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : We agree with the district court and AFFIRM, decision not for publication. R. Guy Cole , Jr., Circuit Judge; Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judge and Helene N. White, Circuit Judge.

Case: 13-4186

Document: 25-2

Filed: 07/24/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0553n.06
Case No. 13-4186

FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PATRICIA ANN SALYER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Jul 24, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO

BEFORE: COLE, COOK, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Patricia Salyer appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial
of her application for disability-insurance benefits.

We agree with the district court and

AFFIRM.
In her application, Salyer alleged that she became disabled in 2007 from bipolar disorder,
general anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, back pain, severe anger outbursts,
fibromyalgia, and drug abuse in remission. After the Social Security Administration rejected her
application, Salyer requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ
denied relief, and the Appeals Council declined review. Over Salyer’s objections, the district
court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the denial of benefits. She appeals.
Salyer contends that (1) the ALJ ignored various portions of vocational-expert (VE)
testimony, including testimony that “it would be difficult” for Salyer to perform any substantially

Case: 13-4186

Document: 25-2

Filed: 07/24/2014

Page: 2

Case No. 13-4186
Salyer v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

gainful employment should the ALJ find that Salyer cannot perform certain tasks, and (2) the
district court erred in not considering a psychiatric report she submitted with her objections to
the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Our review of the ALJ’s decision “is limited to whether
the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether the findings of the ALJ are supported by
substantial evidence.” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009).
Regarding the first contention, though the VE testified that Salyer’s job prospects would
diminish if certain hypothetical conditions applied, that testimony lacks relevance because in fact
the ALJ found that none of those conditions applied. Instead, the ALJ determined—and Salyer
offers no dispute—that Salyer could perform a limited range of light and sedentary work. And
the VE testified that under those conditions, Salyer could perform several types of jobs that exist
in significant numbers in the national economy. (R. 13-2, Hr’g Tr. at 46−47.) The VE’s
testimony lends substantial support to the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits. See Smith v. Halter,
307 F.3d 377, 378 (6th Cir. 2001) (“A vocational expert’s testimony concerning the availability
of suitable work may constitute substantial evidence where the testimony is elicited in response
to a hypothetical question that accurately sets forth the plaintiff’s physical and mental
impairments.”).
Regarding Salyer’s second contention—the district court’s alleged mistake in not
considering the psychiatric report—the court correctly limited its review to the administrative
record presented to the ALJ. See Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 357 (6th Cir. 2001).
To the extent Salyer argues that the psychiatric report constituted “new evidence” under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) such that the district court could have remanded to the agency for further
consideration, that statute requires that “there [be] new evidence which is material” (emphasis
added). Though the new report noted Salyer’s general “mood symptoms and problems with
-2-

Case: 13-4186

Document: 25-2

Filed: 07/24/2014

Page: 3

Case No. 13-4186
Salyer v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
attention interfering with classroom and online activities . . . [and] interpersonal interactions”
(Appellant’s Br. at 11−12), Salyer fails to explain how these notations conflict with the ALJ’s
finding that Salyer could “perform detailed but not complex tasks with only occasional and
intermittent interactions with others.” (R. 13-2, ALJ Decision at 6.) Because we cannot say with
“a reasonable probability that the [Commissioner] would have reached a different disposition of
the disability claim if presented with the new [doctor’s report],” Hollon ex rel. Hollon v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 447 F.3d 477, 484 (6th Cir. 2006), Salyer’s effort to have it considered falls outside
§ 405(g)’s exception.
We AFFIRM.

-3-