Langer v. Colvin
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this action is DISMISSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 4/19/2017. (srr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
FLOYD LANGER, JR.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL1,
Social Security Commissioner
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-377-N
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) Plaintiff, Floyd Langer, Jr.
(“Langer” or “Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of an adverse social security
ruling denying a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. (Docs.
With the consent of the parties, the Court has designated the
undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry
of judgment in this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 73. (See Docs. 22, 24). Oral
argument was heard on March 10, 2017.
After considering the
administrative record and the memoranda of the parties, it is ORDERED
that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this action be
Nancy A. Berryhill has replaced Carolyn Colvin and is now the acting Social Security
Plaintiff protectively applied for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits on May 29, 2013, asserting a disability onset date of
January 28, 2011. (Tr. at 200-203).
Plaintiff’s claim was denied at the
Administrative level after which Plaintiff requested an administrative
(TR. at 124, 134).
Plaintiff attended a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ”) on November 13, 2014, and the ALJ
rendered an unfavorable decision on December 19, 2014. (TR. at 16-52).
At the time of the administrative hearing, Plaintiff was fifty-seven
years old with a high school diploma, an Associate’s Degree in Business
Administration and a significant previous work history, including experience
as a Corrections Officer until he resigned in 2008. (Doc. 13; Fact Sheet; TR.
at 39-40, 42, and 47). Plaintiff alleges he is disabled due to obesity, bilateral
arthritis of the ankles, back pain, and anxiety. (Doc. 13; Fact Sheet). On
December 19, 2014, an ALJ denied benefits after determining that Plaintiff
was not disabled and was able to work in his previous position as a
Corrections Officer. (TR. at 26). Plaintiff requested review of the hearing
decision, but the Appeals Council denied the request on June 17, 2016. (TR.
Plaintiff claims that the ALJ committed reversible error (1) in that the
ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) was not supported by substantial
evidence, (2) in failing to fulfill her duty to develop the record by ordering a
consultative orthopedic examination, and (3) in failing to find that Plaintiff
suffers from severe impairment of back pain and anxiety. (Doc. 13 at 1-2).
Defendant has responded to—and denies—these claims. (Doc. 16).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“In Social Security appeals, [the Court] must determine whether the
Commissioner’s decision is ‘ “supported by substantial evidence and based on
proper legal standards. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” ’ ” Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176,
1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d
1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted) (quoting
Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997))). However, the
Court “ ‘may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute
our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].’ ” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178
(quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004)
(alteration in original) (quoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239
(11th Cir. 1983))). “ ‘Even if the evidence preponderates against the
[Commissioner]’s factual findings, we must affirm if the decision reached is
supported by substantial evidence.’ ”
Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260 (quoting
Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)).
“Yet, within this narrowly circumscribed role, [courts] do not act as
automatons. [The court] must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine
if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial
evidence[.]” Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239 (citations and quotation omitted).
See also Owens v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)
(“We are neither to conduct a de novo proceeding, nor to rubber stamp the
administrative decisions that come before us. Rather, our function is to
ensure that the decision was based on a reasonable and consistently applied
standard, and was carefully considered in light of all the relevant facts.”). “In
determining whether substantial evidence exists, [a court] must…tak[e] into
account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the [Commissioner’s]
decision.” Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986).
Although the “claimant bears the burden of demonstrating the
inability to return to [his or] her past relevant work, the Commissioner of
Social Security has an obligation to develop a full and fair record.” Shnorr v.
Bowen, 816 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir. 1987). See also Ellison v. Barnhart, 355
F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“It is well-established that the
ALJ has a basic duty to develop a full and fair record. Nevertheless, the
claimant bears the burden of proving that he is disabled, and, consequently,
he is responsible for producing evidence in support of his claim.” (citations
“This is an onerous task, as the ALJ must scrupulously and
conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all relevant facts. In
determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider the
evidence as a whole.” Henry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d 1264, 1267
(11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citation and quotation omitted).
Where, as here, the ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council
denied review of that decision, the Court “review[s] the ALJ’s decision as the
Commissioner’s final decision.” Doughty, 245 F.3d at 1278. “[W]hen the
[Appeals Council] has denied review, [the Court] will look only to the
evidence actually presented to the ALJ in determining whether the ALJ’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence.” Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320,
1323 (11th Cir. 1998).
Langer asserts that the ALJ erred in assigning a RFC that was not
supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 13 at 2-6). Plaintiff additionally
claims that the ALJ failed to fully develop the record by not ordering a
physical consultation and by not finding Plaintiff’s impairments of back pain
and anxiety to be severe.
(Id. at 6-9). The undersigned will address each
alleged assignment of error in turn.
Whether the RFC was supported by substantial evidence
At step three of the sequential process, the ALJ found that through
December 31, 2013, the date of last insured (“DLI”), Plaintiff had severe
impairments of obesity and bilateral arthritis of the ankles. (TR. at 21). At
step five, the ALJ found that “through the date last insured, the claimant had
the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of medium work.”
(Id. at 24). Plaintiff contends that the RFC determined by the ALJ is not
supported by substantial evidence and that the treatment records support a
“more restrictive functional capacity”. (Doc. 13 at 4). In support of a more
restrictive RFC, Plaintiff cites multiple treatment notes relating to pain in
Plaintiff’s ankles, hip, back, right shoulder, left foot, and right wrist as well
as diagnoses of sciatica, degeneration, dyspnea, hypertension, and headaches.
(Id.) Plaintiff additionally points to several treatment notes for anxiety or
anxiety related impairments and to Plaintiff’s testimony relating to his level
of pain, and his ability to walk and stand.
(Id. at 5-6).
acknowledges that the ALJ “reportedly considered all of the Plaintiff’s
symptoms”, but takes issue with the fact that Plaintiff was not given a
physical capacities exam by an orthopedist and that the ALJ’s determination
failed to take into account “Plaintiff’s treatment records and testimony” and
erroneously adopted an RFC that does not encompass Plaintiff’s severe back
pain, psychological impairment, or the effects of Plaintiff’s pain. Defendant
asserts that the ALJ’s RFC determination was supported by substantial
evidence. (Doc. 16 at 2-4).
“The RFC assessment is a function-by-function assessment based upon
all of the relevant evidence of an individual’s ability to do work-related
Social Security Ruling 96-8p, Titles II and XVI:
Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims, 1996 WL 374184, *3. The
Court notes that the ALJ is responsible for determining a claimant’s RFC. 20
C.F.R. § 416.946 (2015). That decision cannot be based on “sit and squirm”
Wilson v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 513, 518 (11th Cir. 1984).
However, the Court also notes that the social security regulations state that
Plaintiff is responsible for providing evidence from which the ALJ can make
an RFC determination. 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(3).
With regard to the symptoms/diagnoses that Plaintiff contends the
ALJ did not consider, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff’s medical records as
The medical evidence of record indicates that the claimant has
reported experiencing back and body pain and headaches. No limiting
factors have been noted in regards to these conditions. The claimant’s
symptoms have been treated with conservative medical management
including prescription medications and various treatment notes
indicate that these conditions are generally controlled (Exhibit B4F,
B8F, B9F, B10F).
Physical examinations have been with no
limitations with the claimant exhibiting full range of motion of the
back and hips, no muscle spasms, negative straight leg raises, and full
strength (Exhibit B7F, B9F, B10F). X-rays of the claimant’s back have
been normal and the claimant has been advised to exercise to alleviate
his pain (Exhibit B4F, B8F, and B9F). X-ray’s of claimant’s hips
performed in August 2013 revealed only mild degenerative changes
while a 2014 MRI of the hips revealed no obvious abnormalities of the
bilateral hips of lumbar spine to explain the claimant’s reports of pain.
(Exhibit B6F, B10F). The evidence does not show that the claimant’s
back and body pain or headaches significantly limited his ability to
perform basic work activities and therefore is not considered a severe
Mental status examinations have been consistently normal revealing
the claimant to have good judgment and insight, and intact memory,
and good concentration abilities (Exhibit B2F, B5F, B3F). He has
sought minimal mental health treatment for his symptoms (Exhibit
B8F, B3F, B8F).
(TR. at 22-23). The ALJ further stated that in reaching her conclusions as to
the mental disorders that she considered the four broad functional areas set
forth in the disability regulations. (Id.) Namely, in determining that Plaintiff
was only mildly limited in activities of daily living, social functioning, and
concentration, persistence and pace, the ALJ considered (1) that the evidence
did not suggest that Plaintiff could not perform adaptive activities of daily
living based on the medical records and his testimony that he lived alone and
attended school four days a week, (2) the lack of medical evidence of more
than mild limitations in social functioning and Plaintiff’s testimony that he
can drive, interact with friends on the phone and computer, shop, is a
member of a social group, and has made friends in the classes he attends, and
(3) Plaintiff’s testimony that he could follow TV programs, focus to drive,
concentrate to shop, and persist to complete chores. (Id. at 23). The ALJ also
noted that Plaintiff was able to stay on point at the social security hearing
and was capable of having a “B” average in the courses he was attending.
(Id.) The ALJ additionally noted that Plaintiff did not have any episodes of
decompensation of an extended duration. (Id.)
In explaining his RFC determination, the ALJ stated as follows:
In terms of the claimant’s alleged limitations, the undersigned finds
that the testimony of the claimant is not fully credible concerning the
severity of her symptoms and the extent of her limitations. Neither
the severity nor the extent is supported by the objective medical
evidence of record. The claimant alleges that she experiences bilateral
ankle pain that prevents him from working. However, the medical
evidence of record reveals that treatment for the claimant’s arthritis
has been relatively sparse and has consisted of primarily conservative
medication management with few if any recommendation for surgery,
pain management, or other more aggressive treatment options that
would be expected for pain of the degree alleged (Exhibit B1F-B11F).
Physical examinations have consistently revealed minimal
abnormalities with the claimant exhibiting a normal gait, and station,
full range of motion of all joints, intact sensation and reflexes, and full
muscle strength (Exhibit B7F, B9F). X-rays have also revealed
minimal abnormalities (Exhibit B4F, B9F, and B10F). The claimant is
prescribed minimal medications for his reports of debilitating pain and
does not require an assistive devise to ambulate. These factors coupled
with claimant’s extensive activities of daily living that include
shopping, performing chores, driving, mowing the grass, attending
school, preparing meals, and living independently belie his claims of
total disability (Exhibit B4E, B6E, B7F).
(TR. at 25.)2 It is clear from the decision, that the ALJ specifically considered
all of Plaintiff’s complaints of pain, diagnoses, and testimony, despite
Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary. The question before this Court is not
whether an alternative determination may be supported by the record, but
whether the decision reached was supported by substantial evidence. See
Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260. “ ‘Even if the evidence preponderates against the
[Commissioner]’s factual findings, we must affirm if the decision reached is
supported by substantial evidence.’ ”
Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260 (quoting
Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)). While the medical
record and Plaintiff’s testimony may support an alternative determination,
there remains substantial evidence within the record on which the ALJ’s
determination was based.
Further, the ALJ specifically articulated the
rationale behind her determination and as a result, Plaintiff’s first
assignment of error is without merit.
Failure to Develop the Record
The ALJ’s decision on numerous occasions, refers to Plaintiff as “she”. The undersigned did
not correct these errors and they have no substantive effect on the merits of Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff second assignment of error is that the ALJ should have
ordered orthopedic consultative examination. Plaintiff does not assert that
the record before the ALJ was incomplete. Rather, Plaintiff contends that
the ALJ should have ordered a orthopedic consultative exam because
Plaintiff repeatedly complained of headaches, shoulder pain, low back pain,
and anxiety and “that the diagnosis and complaints of lower back pain and
hip pain without an accompanying physical capacities evaluation triggered
the Administrative Law Judge’s duty to develop the record”. (Doc. 13 at 7).
Plaintiff additionally asserts that the ALJ’s failure to order an exam resulted
in a RFC determination that does not encompass Plaintiff’s severe back pain,
shoulder pain, or psychological impairments. Plaintiff notes that a request
for an orthopedic and psychological exam was submitted on May 22, 2014.
(Id.) Defendants assert the record relating to Plaintiff’s condition prior to the
DLI was fully developed and, alternatively, that a consultative exam
performed in 2014, would only “consist of a one-time examination as a snap
shot of [Plaintiff’s] current functioning, and would have nominal relevance to
his functioning prior to December 31, 2013.” (Doc. 16 at 5).
It is well-established that the ALJ has a basic duty to develop a full
and fair record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d). “Nevertheless, the claimant bears the
burden of proving that he is disabled, and, consequently, he is responsible for
producing evidence in support of his claim.” Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d
1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003); See 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(a) (stating that
“[claimant] must furnish medical and other evidence that we can use to reach
conclusions about your medical impairment(s)”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(c)
(stating “[y]our responsibility. You must provide medical evidence showing
that you have an impairment(s) and how severe it is during the time you say
you are disabled”). “In fulfilling the duty to conduct a full and fair inquiry,
the ALJ is not required to order a consultative examination unless the record
establishes that such is necessary to enable the ALJ to render a decision.”
River v. Astrue, 901 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1327 (S.D. Ala. 2012); See Ingram v.
Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1269 (11th Cir.2007). (“The
administrative law judge has a duty to develop the record where appropriate
but is not required to order a consultative examination as long as the record
contains sufficient evidence for the administrative law judge to make an
As previously discussed, there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the RFC determined by the ALJ. More specifically, the record
contained multiple records relating to the pain of which Plaintiff complained
prior to his DLI, including even, a physical consultative exam by Dr. Elmo
Ozment, a surgeon, in August 2013, wherein Plaintiff was diagnosed with
“multiple complaints, but essentially negative physical exam” and which
resulted in no physical restrictions/limitations “except for unprotected
heights, which I think would be dangerous for anyone.”
(TR. at 399-403).
Furthermore, the undersigned agrees that if a consultative exam was
warranted in 2014, it would not have provided the ALJ with meaningful
insight relevant to his determination because Plaintiff’s DLI was December
As a result, the undersigned finds that the record contained
sufficient evidence for the administrative law judge to make an informed
decision and there is no indication that the ALJ erred by failing to order a
Whether the ALJ erred in not finding Plaintiff’s
impairments of back pain and anxiety to be severe
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in not finding Plaintiff’s back
pain and anxiety to be severe. In support of his argument, Plaintiff points to
four treatment notes for back pain from December 2011 to December 2013,
which collectively show that Plaintiff was diagnosed with “probable right
sided occipital neuralgia”, “sciatica/lower back pain”, and “lower back pain,
sciatica, dyspnea, right wrist pain, hypertension, and headaches”.
at 8-9). With regard to his anxiety, Plaintiff points to five instances where he
was diagnosed with anxiety disorder and relies on the opinions of Dr. John
W. Davis, Ph.D, who performed a psychological consultative exam in October
2010 and opined that Plaintiff’s “ability to understand, remember, and carry
out simple instructions and make judgments on work-related decisions as
well as Plaintiff’s ability to understand, remember and carry out complex
instructions and make judgments on complex work-related decision to be
(TR. at 9).
Defendants contend Plaintiff failed to
show that these impairments were severe. (Doc. 16 at 6).
"An impairment can be considered as not severe only if it is a slight
abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would
not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work, irrespective
of age, education, or work experience. Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 920
(11th Cir. 1984); See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a) (“An impairment or
combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your
physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”); McCruter v. Bowen,
791 F.2d 1544, 1547 (11th Cir. 1986) ("The 'severity' of a medically
ascertained disability must be measured in terms of its effect upon ability to
work, and not simply in terms of deviation from purely medical standards of
bodily perfection or normality"); and Social Security Ruling 96-3p (“evidence
about the functionally limiting effects of an individual’s impairment(s) must
be evaluated in order to assess the effect of the impairment(s) on the
individual’s ability to do basic work activities”).
The ALJ specifically addressed Plaintiff’s back pain and anxiety, as
discussed above in detail, and clearly stated the reason for finding that those
impairment were not severe, i.e., “the evidence does not show that the
claimant’s back and body pain or headaches significantly limited his ability to
perform basic work activities”. (TR. at 22-23).
This conclusion is supported
by the fact that Plaintiff has received only conservative medical treatment for
these complaints and because the objective medical evidence relating to these
complaints have been primarily within normal limits. (Id.) The ALJ further
determined that “[t]he claimant’s medically determinable mental impairment
[…] did not cause more than minimal limitation in the claimant’s ability to
preform basic mental work activities a was therefore non-severe”. (TR at 23).
The ALJ stated his conclusion was based on his “consideration of the four
broad functional areas set out in the disability regulations for evaluating
mental disorders and in section 12.00C of the listing of Impairments (20 CFR,
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1).” (Id.) Despite evidence that Plaintiff has a
history of back pain and anxiety, Plaintiff has not shown that either
impairment, based on the objective medical evidence, would interfere with
Plaintiff’s ability to work. As such, the ALJ did not err by failing to find
those impairments to be severe.
Plaintiff has raised three claims in bringing this action; all three are
without merit. Upon consideration of the entire record, the Court finds "such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Therefore, it
is ORDERED that the Secretary's decision be AFFIRMED, see Fortenberry
v. Harris, 612 F.2d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1980), and that this action be
DISMMISSED. Judgment will be entered by separate Order.
DONE this 19th day of April 2017.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?