Wingle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/2/2016. (AVC)
2016 Aug-02 PM 02:51
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RICKY WILLIAM WINGLE, SR.,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Case No.: 2:13-CV-821-RDP
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Plaintiff Ricky William Wingle brings this action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social
Security Act (the “Act”), seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying his claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”). See also 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). Based on the court’s review of the record and the brief
submitted by Defendant, the court finds that the decision of the Commissioner is due to be
Plaintiff filed his application for disability and DIB on May 29, 2009, alleging a disability
onset date of April 17, 2009. (Tr. 14, 188-95).
Plaintiff’s claim was denied initially on
September 21, 2009 and upon reconsideration on January 5, 2010.
(Tr. 106-09, 111-13).
Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and received a video
hearing before an ALJ on June 9, 2011. (Tr. 114, 158). He was denied disability and DIB on
July 26, 2011. (Tr. 14-30). The ALJ determined that, contrary to his allegations, Plaintiff had not
been under a disability as defined in the Act since April 17, 2009, the alleged onset date. (Tr.
14). After the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision (Tr.
7), that decision became the final decision of the Commissioner and a proper subject of this
court’s appellate review.
Plaintiff was fifty-four years old at the time of his hearing. (Tr. 188). Plaintiff has a
GED and past relevant work history as a tractor-trailer operator for the United States Postal
Service. (Tr. 237, 241). Plaintiff alleges that he has been disabled since April 17, 2009 due to
pain in his left hip, both knees, both shoulders, right elbow, and back. (Tr. 236).
On January 10, 2008, Plaintiff complained to his primary doctor, Dr. Thomas
Constantino, of left shoulder pain. (Tr. 443). X-rays revealed mild acromioclavicular (AC) joint
arthropathy but an otherwise normal left shoulder. (Tr. 334). Dr. Constantino prescribed
Plaintiff pain medication. (Tr. 443). Plaintiff received a corticosteroid injection in his left
shoulder on April 9, 2008. (Tr. 399). On April 27, 2008, a MRI scan of his left shoulder
revealed small tears, a small cyst, and mild to moderate AC joint arthropathy. (Tr. 333). On
July 10, 2008, Plaintiff saw his VA doctor for right leg cellulitis and was off work for one week.
(Tr. 388). On September 22, 2008, Plaintiff went to the VA clinic complaining of left hip and
back pain. (Tr. 375). He was still working full-time at this time, and the exam results were
normal. (Tr. 375-77).
On October 6, 2008, Plaintiff saw a cardiologist at the VA to follow-up on an abnormal
stress test he had in April 2008. (Tr. 375, 404-407). Plaintiff told the doctor that he recalled
having severe chest pains five years earlier but had not experienced any since; the doctor
diagnosed Plaintiff with coronary artery disease based on an old inferior wall myocardial
infarction. (Tr. 373-74). The doctor did not recommend a catheter at that time, due to lack of
symptoms. (Tr. 374).
On November 25, 2008, after twisting his knee at work, Plaintiff saw Dr. Constantino
because he was experiencing intermittent right knee pain and his knee was locking for about two
weeks. (Tr. 414). Plaintiff was wearing a knee brace, but Dr. Constantino indicated that
Plaintiffs knee joint was stable. (Id.). The diagnosis was medial ligament strain, and Dr.
Constantino prescribed pain medication and advised Plaintiff to continue wearing of the brace.
(Id.). A December 7, 2008 MRI of Plaintiff’s right knee showed a medial meniscus tear, mild to
moderate cartilage thinning, and mild tendinosis of the quadriceps tendon and patellar tendon.
(Tr. 331). On December 31, 2008, Plaintiff saw a VA orthopedist who reviewed the December
7th MRI and indicated it showed a medial meniscal tear. (Tr. 366-67). Plaintiff received a
steroid injection in his right knee on January 12, 2009. (Tr. 365). On March 2, 2009, Plaintiff
told his VA orthopedist that the injection gave him two to three weeks of relief, and he would
rather be treated with pain medication instead of arthroscopic surgery. (Tr. 364).
On April 7, 2009, Plaintiff again saw his VA doctor with complaints of pain (Tr. 360-61),
and on April 18, 2009, Plaintiff went to the VA emergency room with complaints of lower back
pain and pain in his left hip, knee, and ankle. (Tr. 354-57). Plaintiff stated that he had been
experiencing the pain for over one week after loading and unloading his truck and lifting weights
up to ninety pounds. (Id.). Plaintiff’s gait, station, range of motion, stability, muscle strength,
and tone of upper and lower extremities were normal, and the doctor diagnosed Plaintiff with
acute back pain. (Tr. 356). On April 20, 2009, Plaintiff saw Dr. Constantino with complaints of
right knee pain, low back pain, and hip pain since he hit a car while backing up his truck for the
post office. (Tr. 413). Dr. Constantino found that Plaintiff had decreased range of motion of the
left hip and lumbar spine and diagnosed hip pain due to possible hamstring strain or
osteoarthritis. (Id.). X-rays the same day found mild disc degeneration at the L1-2 level and
normal left hip study. (Tr. 329).
On April 30, 2009, Dr. Constantino noted that Plaintiff was scheduled to return to work
May 4, 2009 and stated that the previous restrictions still applied; however, these restrictions
were not specified in the records. (Tr. 413). Dr. Constantino diagnosed Plaintiff with lumbar
degenerative disc disease and tendonitis of the left hip. (Id.). On May 18, 2009, Dr. Constantino
noted that Plaintiff could operate a commercial motor vehicle, but he could not lift, push, or pull
over twenty-five pounds. (Tr. 412). Dr. Constantino noted that this restriction was from April
30, 2009 and forward.
Dr. Constantino continued those same restrictions and pain
medication in Plaintiff’s June 2, 16, and 30, 2009 visits. (Tr. 447-48).
On June 8, 2009, Plaintiff went to the VA for complaints of lower back, left hip, left
knee, and left ankle pain. (Tr. 517). The doctor reviewed Plaintiff’s x-rays and stated that they
showed mild arthritis. (Tr. 519). Plaintiff met with a rheumatology consultant on June 30, 2009,
and the diagnosis was arthralgia and back pain with mild scoliosis. (Tr. 514-16).
In a June 2, 2009 Disability Report, Plaintiff stated that he was limited in his ability to
work due to his left hip, both knees, both shoulders, right elbow, and back problems. (Tr. 236).
Plaintiff also stated that he could not lift, push, or pull more than twenty-five pounds, and the
medications he took prevented him from hearing his alarm clock in the morning. (Id.). Plaintiff
stated that he was in constant pain. (Id.).
Plaintiff completed a Function Report on June 28, 2009 and stated that he lives alone, and
during the day, he watches television, uses the Internet, takes his pain medication, and visits
family and friends when able. (Tr. 261). Plaintiff stated that he has a dog that he feeds and
waters and neighbors help him walk. (Tr. 262). Plaintiff noted some problems with personal
care but stated that he prepares meals daily and does household chores. (Id.). Plaintiff also
indicated that he could lift about twenty pounds, but he could not sit without pain in his back and
left hip and could walk only two blocks before needing to stop and rest. (Tr. 266). Plaintiff also
noted that he used a knee brace as needed and that he had respiratory problems. (Tr. 267-68).
Plaintiff’s medical records indicate that he has smoked cigarettes for over forty years, despite
being encouraged to quit. (Tr. 346-47).
Plaintiff stated in an August 2009 Pain Questionnaire that his pain began after he was hit
by a car while helping a disabled motorist in 1990, but the pain has increased since then. (Tr.
269). Plaintiff noted breathing problems and stated that his pain medicine does not relieve his
pain but makes him sleepy. (Tr. 271, 273).
On July 13, 2009, Plaintiff told Dr. Constantino that he was feeling better but was not
allowed to return to work. (Tr. 448). On August 1, 2009, Plaintiff was seen for an exam at the
VA clinic in Kentucky after moving there from Michigan. (Tr. 469-80). The exam results were
normal, the doctor discontinued Plaintiff’s pain medications, and Plaintiff was advised to engage
in thirty minutes of daily activity, such as walking. (Id.).
On September 8, 2009, Dr. Omar Chavez conducted a consultative examination of
Plaintiff. (Tr. 419-24). Plaintiff reported that his back pain was a 7/10, and he had pain in the
left ankle, left hip, and both knees with an intensity of 3 to 8/10; however, Plaintiff reported that
pain medication alleviated the pain. (Tr. 419). Dr. Chavez noted that Plaintiff could dress and
undress, get up from the chair, get on to the exam table, and squat. (Tr. 421). Dr. Chavez also
noted that Plaintiff had decreased range of motion in both shoulders, lumbar spine, and straight
leg raising from supine. (Id.). Dr. Chavez diagnosed Plaintiff with chronic back pain and
chronic pain in the knees, left ankle, and left hip. (Id.).
Plaintiff went to the VA emergency room on November 6, 2009 for complaints of right
leg cellulitis. (Tr. 513-14). In a November 19, 2009 disability report, Plaintiff stated that his
pain had increased, he continued to experience episodes of cellulitis, and walking had become
harder for him. (Tr. 247). Plaintiff also stated that he had respiratory problems, his pain made it
hard for him to care for his personal needs, and he tried to stay off of his feet as much as
possible. (Tr. 247, 250).
On July 23, 2010, Plaintiff went to the VA emergency room in Tennessee with
complaints of right knee, left hip, and lower back pain after using a push mower. (Tr. 577). On
August 16, 2010, Plaintiff underwent a primary exam at the Tennessee VA. (Tr. 565-70). The
examining doctor found that Plaintiff’s muscle strength was 5/5; Plaintiff’s extremities were
normal except for a popping sound in the left knee; and Plaintiff’s straight leg raising test was
negative. (Tr. 567). Plaintiff was able to heel/toe walk, his gait was steady, and he could squat
with right foot difficulty. (Id.). X-rays showed near total lumbarization of S1 and the diagnosis
was minimal degenerative disc narrowing at L5-S1. (Tr. 600).
On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff was examined by an orthopedist at the VA. (Tr. 649-51).
The orthopedist noted that Plaintiff was able to undress and get up and down out of the chair and
onto the examining table without difficulty. (Tr. 650). Moreover, the orthopedist found no
irritability or restriction of motion of either hip and no effusion or increased warmth in either
knee. (Tr. 650-51). The orthopedist noted generalized motor wasting in both lower extremities
and indicated this was likely due to inactivity. (Tr. 651), and that a January 4, 2011 x-ray of
Plaintiff’s left hip (Tr. 640) and bilateral knee exams from January 2, 2011 (Tr. 639) were both
normal; however, lumbar spine x-rays from August 16, 2010 demonstrated minimal disc
narrowing at L5-S1. (Tr. 651). The orthopedist’s diagnoses were pulseless left lower extremity
and subjective complaint of low back pain, left hip and bilateral knee pain, without supporting
radiographic evidence of degenerative joint disease, and no ligament laxity or joint irritability
was identified. (Id.). The orthopedist recommended an arterial flow study of the left lower
extremity. (Tr. 620). Those tests showed mild obstructive vascular disease at the level of
superficial femoral artery. (Tr. 651). Plaintiff was treated for right lower leg cellulitis on April
30, 2011. (Tr. 615-18). On May 16, 2011, Plaintiff complained again of pain in his right
shoulder, knees, and left leg and hip and indicated that he sometimes became short of breath
when walking uphill. (Tr. 609-10).
At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that he was struck by a vehicle while helping a disabled
motorist in 1990. (Tr. 42). However, after the accident, he returned to full duty work at the
Postal Service for over twenty years. (Id.). Plaintiff also testified that, for about three to five
years before his alleged onset date, the Postal Service was accommodating him with restricted or
limited duty. (Id.). Plaintiff testified that the post office informed him that his schedule was
changed, and after lifting heavy containers for five days, Plaintiff went to the VA emergency
room on April 18, 2009 for pain. (Tr. 43-44). Plaintiff testified that he was off work for a few
weeks, and when he returned, he was told that there was no longer any work available for him.
(Tr. 44). Plaintiff testified that his back and hip prevented him from sitting at a desk and
dispatching trucks. (Tr. 45). Plaintiff also testified that his condition has gotten worse since
May 2009, when he was restricted from lifting, pushing, or pulling more than twenty-five
pounds. (Tr. 47).
Disability under the Act is determined under a five-step test. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). “Substantial work activity” is work activity that involves doing
significant physical or mental activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572(a). “Gainful work activity” is
work that is done for pay or profit. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572(b). If the ALJ finds that the claimant
engages in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant cannot claim disability. 20 C.F.R. §
Second, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically
determinable impairment or a combination of medical impairments that significantly limits the
claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). Absent such
impairment, the claimant may not claim disability. Id. Third, the ALJ must determine whether
the claimant’s impairments meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20
C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, and 404.1526.
If such criteria are met, the claimant is declared disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).
If the claimant does not fulfill the requirements necessary to be declared disabled under
the third step, the ALJ may still find disability under the next two steps of the analysis. The ALJ
must first determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which refers to the
claimant’s ability to work despite his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). In the fourth step,
the ALJ determines whether the claimant has the RFC to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is determined to be capable of performing past relevant
work, then the claimant is deemed not disabled. Id. If the ALJ finds the claimant unable to
perform past relevant work, then the analysis proceeds to the fifth and final step. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(v). In the last part of the analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant
is able to perform any other work commensurate with his RFC, age, education, and work
experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). Here, the burden of proof shifts from the claimant to the
ALJ to prove the existence, in significant numbers, of jobs in the national economy that the
claimant can do given his RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g),
Here, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since his alleged onset date and that he has the following severe impairments: mild degenerative
disc narrowing at L5-S1, right knee meniscal tear, left shoulder mild acromioclavicular (AC)
joint arthropathy, and mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). (Tr. 16). The ALJ
then found that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets
or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.”
(Tr. 19). The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff “has the residual functional capacity to perform light
work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b)1 except he cannot lift, push or pull weight over 25
During Plaintiff’s hearing, the ALJ asked a vocational expert (“VE”) if a person with
Plaintiff’s designated RFC would be precluded from performing Plaintiff’s past relevant work;
the VE answered in the affirmative. (Tr. 53). Therefore, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff is
unable to perform his past relevant work. (Tr. 28).
Next the ALJ asked the VE whether jobs exist in the national economy that could be
performed by an individual of Plaintiff’s age, and with Plaintiff’s education, work experience,
and RFC. (Tr. 29, 52-53). The VE responded that such an individual would be able to perform
light, unskilled jobs such as gate guard, ticket taker, and production inspector. (Tr. 53).
Light work involves lifting no more than twenty pounds at a time and frequent lifting or carrying up to ten
pounds. Jobs in this category require a good deal of walking or standing or sitting while pushing and pulling arm or
leg controls. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).
ALJ then asked the VE if the following hypothetical individual would be capable of performing
Plaintiff’s past relevant work or any other work:
[A]n individual of [Plaintiff’s] age, education, past work
experience, etc., is restricted to lifting and carrying only 20 pounds
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, can’t climb ladders, ropes
or scaffolds, but can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, and can
occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl and balance, and he can’t
perform overhead lifting [from] the shoulders up bilaterally, and he
should avoid extremes of cold and vibration with no work around
hazardous machinery . . . .
(Tr. 29). The VE responded that such an individual would not be able to perform Plaintiff’s past
relevant work but could still do the light, unskilled jobs of gate guard, ticket taker, and
production inspector. (Tr. 54-55). As the ALJ noted, “the [VE] further testified that even if such
individual required the ability to sit or stand at the workplace every 30 minutes, these jobs would
not be precluded, but only reduced in numbers by approximately 50%.” (Id.). In light of the
ALJ’s findings and the testimony of the VE, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has not been under
a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from April 17, 2009 through the date of the
ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 29).
Plaintiff’s Argument for Reversal
Plaintiff has not filed a brief in opposition of the Commissioner’s decision. There is no
argument challenging the ALJ’s decision other than the allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint that
the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
Thus, the court
considers all arguments on issues of fact waived. See United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d
1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Because Cunningham has offered no argument on this issue on
appeal, we find that he has abandoned it.”).
Standard of Review
The only issues before this court are whether the record reveals substantial evidence to
sustain the ALJ’s decision, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838
(11th Cir. 1982), and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Lamb v. Bowen, 847
F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). Title 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) mandates that the Commissioner’s findings are conclusive if supported by
“substantial evidence.” Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). The district
court may not reconsider the facts, reevaluate the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of
the Commissioner; instead, it must review the final decision as a whole and determine if the
decision is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. See Id. (citing Bloodsworth v.
Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)).
Substantial evidence falls somewhere between a scintilla and a preponderance of
evidence; “[i]t is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529 (quoting Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239) (other
citations omitted). If supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s factual findings
must be affirmed even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings. See
Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529. While the court acknowledges that judicial review of the ALJ’s
findings is limited in scope, the court also notes that review “does not yield automatic
affirmance.” Lamb, 847 F.2d at 701.
The ALJ Correctly Followed the Five-Step Test for Determining Disability.
After reviewing the ALJ’s decision, the court finds that the ALJ properly applied the
five-step test for determining whether Plaintiff is disabled.
First, the ALJ concluded that
Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the relevant period. (Tr. 16).
Second, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: mild
degenerative disc narrowing at L5-S1, right knee meniscal tear, left shoulder mild AC joint
arthropathy, and mild COPD. (Id.). The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met relevant Listing requirements. (Tr. 19). In
light of these findings, the ALJ made an RFC determination and concluded that Plaintiff has the
RFC to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b); however, the ALJ determined
that Plaintiff cannot lift, push, or pull weight in excess of twenty-five pounds. (Id.). After
determining Plaintiff’s RFC and limitations, the ALJ found that Plaintiff cannot perform any of
his past relevant work; however, based on responses to hypothetical questions posed to the VE,
the ALJ determined that an individual with Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC
could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, such as gate guard,
ticket taker, and production inspector. (Tr. 28-29). The ALJ followed the proper legal standards.
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(b)
The ALJ’s Disability Determination is Supported by Substantial Evidence.
After careful review of the record, the court also finds that the ALJ’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence.
The medical record supports the ALJ’s list of severe
Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that
Plaintiff has no severe impairment due to episodes of right lower extremity cellulitis and that he
has no severe cardiac impairment. Plaintiff only experienced three episodes of cellulitis from
July 2008 to April 2011. (Tr. 388, 513-14, 615-18). The first time Plaintiff mentioned cellulitis
was noted in his November 19, 2009 Disability Report; (Tr. 247) however, Plaintiff did not
allege disability due to cellulitis in his June 2009 Disability Report (Tr. 236) or in his June 2009
Function Report. (Tr. 261-69). Nor did he allege pain due to cellulitis in his August 2009 Pain
Questionnaire. (Tr. 269-73). Moreover, Plaintiff saw a cardiologist at the VA on one occasion
and told the doctor that he had experienced chest pains five years before but had not experienced
any pain since. (Tr. 373-74). Plaintiff did not allege disability due to cardiac impairment in his
June 2009 Disability Report, (Tr. 235-42) June 2009 Function Report, (Tr. 261-29) or November
2009 Disability Report. (Tr. 246-52).
Therefore, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
finding of severe impairments and the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff does not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that meets the criteria of the Listings. (Tr. 19).
Furthermore, the court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC
determination. The ALJ’s determination is consistent with the restriction Dr. Constantino placed
on Plaintiff (Tr. 412), as well as the results of Plaintiff’s doctor exams, x-rays, and MRIs. (Tr.
329, 331, 333-34, 356, 366-67, 375-77, 413-14, 419-24, 469-80, 514-16, 519, 567, 600, 639-40,
Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s hearing
testimony regarding pain was not credible. The Eleventh Circuit follows a two-prong pain
standard, which requires that:
In order to establish a disability based on testimony of pain and other symptoms, a
claimant must satisfy two parts of a three-part test showing: (1) evidence of an
underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence
confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined
medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.
Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d
1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991)). After an ALJ determines that an objectively determined medical
condition can reasonably be expected to cause the pain, an ALJ may reject the subjective pain
testimony as less than credible if the ALJ can show inconsistencies between the claimant’s
testimony and his daily activities, medical records, doctor’s notes, or any other relevant
evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3).
The ALJ properly recited the pain test (Tr.19) and found that Plaintiff’s statements
concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not credible to
the extent that they were inconsistent with the RFC assessment. (Tr. 20). Plaintiff’s testimony
was also inconsistent with his reported daily activities (Tr. 262) as well as his statements that he
could lift twenty to twenty-five pounds.
(Tr. 236, 266).
Moreover, as the ALJ noted,
“[Plaintiff’s statements were] also inconsistent with the objective, clinical findings. [Plaintiff’s]
imaging and exam findings have been minimal and no doctor assessed he is disabled due to those
findings.” (Tr. 27).
Finally, the ALJ’s determination that there are other jobs that exist in significant numbers
in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform is supported by the hearing testimony of the
vocational expert. (Tr. 28, 52-56).
The court concludes that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff is not disabled is
supported by substantial evidence, and the proper legal standards were applied in reaching this
determination. The Commissioner’s final decision is therefore due to be affirmed. A separate
order in accordance with this memorandum of decision will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this August 2, 2016.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?