Devilder v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER re: 1 Complaint. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in favor of the Commissioner, and close the file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 9/13/2016. (LS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SARA DEVILDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:15-cv-421-FtM-CM
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Sara Devilder seeks judicial review of the denial of her claim for a
period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) by the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”). The Court has reviewed the
record, the briefs and the applicable law.
For the reasons discussed herein, the
decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
I.
Issue on Appeal 1
Plaintiff raises one issue on appeal: whether the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) properly weighed the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating psychologist, Dr. Roxann
Sangiacomo, M.D.
Any issue not raised by Plaintiff on appeal is deemed to be waived. Access Now, Inc. v.
Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A] legal claim or argument
1
that has not been briefed before the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not be
addressed.”), cited in Sanchez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 507 F. App'x 855, 856 n.1 (11th Cir.
2013).
II.
Procedural History and Summary of the ALJ’s Decision
On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for a period of
disability and DIB. Tr. 137-44. Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of June 1,
2011 due to fibromyalgia, depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Tr. 137, 155.
Her claim initially was denied on October 4, 2012 and upon reconsideration on
December 4, 2012. Tr. 73, 86. Plaintiff requested and received a hearing before
ALJ S. D. Schwartzberg on February 24, 2014 during which she was represented by
an attorney. Tr. 33-34. Plaintiff and vocational expert Joyce Ryan testified at the
hearing. Tr. 33. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on March 7, 2014. Tr.
17-27.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Social
Security Act through December 31, 2016. Tr. 19. At step one, the ALJ concluded
that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 1, 2011, the
alleged onset date. Id. At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “has the following
severe combination of impairments: fibromyalgia, degenerative changes of the
cervical and lumbar spine, obesity, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
dermatotillomania, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder.” Id. At step three, the
ALJ concluded that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 . . . .” Tr. 20. The ALJ
determined that Plaintiff had the RFC to:
-2-
perform light work, 2 except limited to: frequent postural activities (of
climbing ramps and stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and
crawling); occasional climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; avoidance
of concentrated exposure to hazards; simple, routine, repetitive work;
occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors; and no public
contact.
Tr. 21. Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is unable to perform any of her past
relevant work as a medical practice office assistant, park recreation manager, retail
business operator manager, and store laborer. Tr. 26. At step five, in considering
Plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff had acquired work skills from past relevant work that are transferrable to
other occupations with jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
Tr. 26. Thus, in considering Plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and work experience
and relying on the VE testimony, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is capable of performing
other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, namely a
photocopy machine operator, laundry sorter, and mail room sorter.
Tr. 27.
Accordingly, the ALJ ruled that Plaintiff has not been disabled through the date of
the decision. Id.
Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ’s decision, which the Appeals Council
denied on May 27, 2015. Tr. 1-5. Accordingly, the ALJ’s March 7, 2014 decision is
“Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or
carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very
little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it
involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be
considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light work, you must have the ability
to do substantially all of these activities. If someone can do light work, we determine that he
or she can also do sedentary work, unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss of
fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of time.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).
2
-3-
the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff filed an appeal in this Court on July
13, 2015. Doc. 1. Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United
States Magistrate Judge, and this matter is now ripe for review. Docs. 14, 15.
III.
Social Security Act Eligibility and Standard of Review
A claimant is entitled to disability benefits when she is unable to engage in
any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment which can be expected to either result in death or last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve months. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a). The
Commissioner has established a five-step sequential analysis for evaluating a claim
of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The Eleventh Circuit has summarized the
five steps as follows:
(1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or
combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or
equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of
Impairments; (4) based on a residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past
relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are
significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant
can perform given the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work
experience.
Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). The claimant
bears the burden of persuasion through step four, and, at step five, the burden shifts
to the Commissioner. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).
The scope of this Court’s review is limited to determining whether the ALJ
applied the correct legal standards and whether the findings are supported by
substantial evidence. Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th
-4-
Cir. 2004).
The Commissioner’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by
substantial evidence.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Substantial evidence is “more than a
scintilla, i.e., evidence that must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of
the fact to be established, and such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would
accept as adequate to support the conclusion.” Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560
(11th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted); see also Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206,
1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (finding that “[s]ubstantial evidence is something more than a
mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance”) (internal citation omitted).
“The
district court must view the record as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable
as well as unfavorable to the decision.” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560; see also Lowery v.
Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating that the court must scrutinize
the entire record to determine the reasonableness of the factual findings).
The Eleventh Circuit recently has restated that “[i]n determining whether
substantial evidence supports a decision, we give great deference to the ALJ’s
factfindings.” Hunter v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 808 F.3d 818, 822 (11th Cir.
2015) (citing Black Diamond Coal Min. Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 95 F.3d 1079, 1082 (11th
Cir. 1996)).
Where the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence, the district court will affirm, even if the reviewer would have reached a
contrary result as finder of fact, and even if the reviewer finds that the preponderance
of the evidence is against the Commissioner’s decision. Edwards v. Sullivan, 937
F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir. 1991); Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir.
1991).
“The district court must view the record as a whole, taking into account
-5-
evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision.” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560;
see also Lowery, 979 F.2d at 837 (stating that the court must scrutinize the entire
record to determine the reasonableness of the factual findings). It is the function of
the Commissioner, and not the courts, to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to
assess the credibility of the witnesses. Lacina v. Commissioner, 2015 WL 1453364,
at *2 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Grant v. Richardson, 445 F.2d 656 (5th Cir. 1971)).
IV.
Discussion
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred when he failed to give appropriate weight
to the opinion of Dr. Roxann Sangiacomo, Plaintiff’s long term psychiatrist. Doc. 24
at 5-9. Dr. Sangiacomo treated Plaintiff for approximately ten years. 3 Tr. 36. On
December 30, 2013, Dr. Sangiacomo completed a Medical Assessment of Ability to Do
Work Related Activities relating to Plaintiff. Tr. 579-81. Dr. Sangiacomo opined
that Plaintiff had a good 4 ability to relate to co-workers, deal with the public, and
interact with supervisors; a fair 5 ability to follow work rules, function independently,
and maintain attention/concentration, and; poor or no 6 ability to use judgment and
deal with work stress. Tr. 579-80. She further opined that Plaintiff had a good
ability to understand, remember, and carry out simple job instructions, and relate
predictably in social situations; a fair ability to understand, remember, and carry out
detailed but not complex job instructions, to maintain personal appearance, behave
Plaintiff testified that she had started seeing Dr. Sangiacomo because of an attempted
suicide in the year 2000. Tr. 36.
4 “Good” is defined as “[a]bility to function in this area is limited but satisfactory.” Tr. 579.
5 “Fair” is defined as “[a]bility to function in this area is seriously limited, but not precluded.”
Tr. 579.
6 “Poor or None” is defined as “[n]o useful ability to function in this area.” Tr. 579.
3
-6-
in an emotionally stable manner, and demonstrate reliability; poor or no ability to
understand, remember, and carry out complex job instructions.
Tr. 580-81. In
further describing Plaintiff’s limitations, Dr. Sangiacomo wrote: “[Plaintiff] is
intelligent but the [mental] illness causes [her] to exhibit impulsivity, mood swings,
compulsive self-destructive behaviors with periods of poor insight and bad judgment.”
Tr. 580. Dr. Sangiacomo further opined that Plaintiff would not be able to manage
and function in a work environment, that Plaintiff cannot manage her own funds due
to a history of compulsive gambling, and that Plaintiff has non-suicidal self-injurious
behavior. Tr. 581.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Sangiacomo’s opinion is
inconsistent with the medical records. Doc. 24 at 8. Plaintiff contends that the
ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff would have moderate limitations with concentrating and
engaging in social functioning “appears to be consistent with” Dr. Sangiacomo’s
opinion. Id. According to Plaintiff, however, the ALJ does not directly address Dr.
Sangiacomo’s opinion that Plaintiff would have poor or no ability to deal with work
stress; and his rejection of this portion of the opinion is contrary to the medical record,
and is in error. Id.
Under the Social Security regulations, opinions of treating sources usually are
given more weight because treating physicians are the most likely to be able to offer
detailed opinions of the claimant’s impairments as they progressed over time and
“may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from
the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations . . . .”
-7-
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Medical source opinions may be discounted, however,
when the opinion is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques or if the opinion is inconsistent with the record as a
whole.
SSR 96-2p; Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1159-60.
If the opinion of a treating
physician as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment is supported by
acceptable medical evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence
of record, the treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight. SSR 962p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). By contrast, if the ALJ does not afford controlling weight
to a treating physician’s opinion, she must clearly articulate the reasons for doing so.
Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.
Accordingly, “[a]n ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion substantial
weight, unless good cause is shown.” Castle v. Colvin, 557 F. App’x 849, 854 (11th
Cir. 2014) (citing Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004)); Lewis
v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); Sabo v. Chater, 955 F. Supp. 1456,
1462 (M.D. Fla. 1996); Hunter, 808 F.3d at 822-23. “Good cause exists when the ‘(1)
treating physician’s opinion 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 (quoting
Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241). Although the regulations require that the ALJ consider
all factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), the ALJ is not required to expressly
address each factor so long as she demonstrates good cause to reject the opinion.
Lawton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 431 F. App’x 830, 833 (11th Cir. 2011).
-8-
In his opinion, the ALJ thoroughly discussed Plaintiff’s alleged mental
impairments.
Tr. 23-26.
He noted that Plaintiff received formal mental health
treatment from Dr. Sangiacomo for diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, dermatotillomania, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder. Tr. 23. The
ALJ further explained:
[Plaintiff’s] treatment record indicates that [she] was treated with
prescribed medication but that she did experience periods of
exacerbation during which she required medication changes to achieve
symptom reduction. Despite these periods of exacerbation, the record
documents that [Plaintiff] was improved with the use of medication and
continuing treatment. Her primary care providers at Lee Physicians
Group described [Plaintiff’s] mental impairments as stable. [Plaintiff]
denied suicidal ideation, and there is no record of inpatient psychiatric
treatment. [Plaintiff’s] mental health treatment records indicate that
[she] was doing better with her medication regimen during most of 2013.
It was noted that [Plaintiff] had less anxiety, that she had reduced her
skin picking and that her mood and functioning were better. In
October 2013, [Plaintiff] reported that she had went [sic] to a family
reunion and that she was walking one hour a day six days a week with
a friend. Although [Plaintiff] has difficulties in social interaction and
in concentration, persistence, or pace, the record fails to establish
greater than moderate limitations or difficulty in these areas. While
[Plaintiff] experiences symptoms of mental impairment, the records
show that she is able to communicate with others, act in her own
interest, and perform most ordinary activities.
Tr. 23-24. Further, the ALJ specifically discussed Dr. Sangiacomo’s opinion and
each finding contained within it, including the limitation on inability to use judgment
and deal with work stress. Tr. 24. Ultimately, the ALJ gave little weight to Dr.
Sangiacomo’s opinion because “it is not supported by medically acceptable clinical
findings and diagnostic technique and is not consistent with the medical record,”
although the ALJ did not independently weigh each portion of the opinion. Tr. 25.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion.
-9-
On June 15, 2011 Plaintiff saw Dr. Sangiacomo after she decided to quit her
job.
Tr. 368.
She reported that she was not feeling “quite right.”
Id.
Dr.
Sangiacomo noted that Plaintiff was alert, oriented, pleasant, cooperative, a bit
fatigued, and somewhat distracted and disinterested.
Id.
But, her insight and
judgment were fair. Three months later, on September 14, 2011, Plaintiff reported
doing well and her mood being okay. Tr. 369. She again appeared alert, oriented,
and goal oriented. Id. Her skin looked good, with no outbreaks. Id. Her insight
and judgment were adequate. Id.
Plaintiff returned to see Dr. Sangiacomo on February 29, 2012, at which time
she reported she was not doing well. Tr. 370. Plaintiff started picking her face and
was required to go to an urgent care to obtain antibiotics. Id. Dr. Sangiacomo noted
that Plaintiff appeared distracted, somewhat fuzzy, and foggy.
Id.
She had
moderate anxiety and dysphoria. Id. Plaintiff’s self-attitude was diminished, but
her insight and judgment were fair.
Id.
Dr. Sangiacomo changed Plaintiff’s
medications, and the following month, on March 29, 2012, Plaintiff reported that her
sleep, energy, and appetite were improving. Tr. 371. Although Plaintiff continued
to pick her skin, she was advised to continue to help her skin heal and follow good
hygiene. Id. The mental status exam revealed a much more neutral mood, less
dysphoria, and brighter affect. Id.
Plaintiff next saw Dr. Sangiacomo on May 31, 2012. Tr. 373. During this
visit, Dr. Sangiacomo noted that Plaintiff “[has] had a terrible bout with picking her
skin. Brings in photos of absolutely picking large areas, up to 3 inches in diameter,
- 10 -
raw.”
Id.
Plaintiff reported, however, that her mood had been good, despite
significant situational stress.
Id. Plaintiff was not ruminating or perseverating
about other things, and did most of the picking during her sleep at night. Id. Dr.
Sangiacomo discussed with Plaintiff the behavioral component of the picking, and
instructed Plaintiff to purchase white gloves and tape them on at night. Id. During
this visit, Plaintiff’s mental status exam revealed that she was alert, oriented,
pleasant, cooperative, and nicely attired and groomed. Id. Her scars were healing,
though still open. Id. She had no paranoia or looseness of association, her selfattitude was fair; her insight and judgment were developing. Id.
Three months later, on August 23, 2012, Dr. Sangiacomo noted that Plaintiff’s
mood had “not been too bad.” Tr. 373. Plaintiff appeared alert, oriented, and goal
directed. Id. She was pleasant, cooperative, in a reasonably neutral mood, and
with no overt anxiety. Id. Dr. Sangiacomo noted that Plaintiff “interacts well, with
good eye contact.” Id. Her self-attitude and insight were fair; her judgment was
developing. Id.
Three months later, however, on November 1, 2012, Plaintiff reported
continued problems with picking her skin. Tr. 393. She was very overwhelmed,
and reported increased anxiety and problems with attention, concentration, and
memory. Id. Plaintiff reported that she had been lying to Dr. Sangiacomo for the
previous six months. Id. Physical examination revealed that Plaintiff was alert
and oriented, although somewhat rambling.
overwhelmed.
Id.
Tr. 394.
Plaintiff appeared
Her mood was severely depressed and she had significant
- 11 -
anxiety.
Id.
However, there was no evidence of formal thought disorder, nor
homicidal ideation or plan.
Id. Her memory was grossly intact for remote and
recent events, though somewhat patchy for immediate recall.
judgment were fair to poor.
Id.
Id. Her insight and
Her medications were adjusted, and Plaintiff
showed improvement on her following visit on November 26, 2016. Tr. 547.
During her November 26, 2012 visit, although Plaintiff reported still picking
her skin, she said she was feeling about 60% better. Id. She also reported that she
received “incredible” relief using Xanax every time she felt the urge to pick her skin.
Id. The physical examination revealed that Plaintiff was alert, oriented, and goal
oriented. Id. She was pleasant and cooperative, with underlying anxiety, but much
less dysphoric. Id. There was no evidence of a formal thought disorder. Id. Her
insight and judgment were “mildly impaired.” Tr. 548.
On January 21, 2013, Plaintiff reported reduced anxiety and improved mood,
particularly with daily exercise. Tr. 551. Her mental status exam revealed that
her mood was much brighter, her anxiety reduced, and she had reduced rumination
and perservation. Tr. 552. There was no evidence of formal thought disorder and
her memory was intact for remote, recent, and immediate recall. Id. Her fund of
knowledge was adequate, commensurate with age and education. Id. Her insight
and judgment were limited by the extent of her anxious thoughts. Id. Similarly, on
March 4, 2013, Plaintiff reported that she had been functioning better. Tr. 553.
Her mental status examination showed no difference from the previous visit with
respect to her speech and fund of knowledge.
- 12 -
Id.
Although Plaintiff had mild
anxiety and rumination, and her vital sense and self-attitude had diminished, her
insight and judgment appeared adequate. Id.
Plaintiff continued to report improvement during her next visit, on May 6,
2013. Tr. 555. Plaintiff reported that she had experienced significant relief with
her regimen in her compulsive skin picking.
Tr. 555.
The mental status
examination revealed no difference from the prior visit with respect to her speech and
fund of knowledge. Tr. 556. Her insight and judgment were limited by the extent
of her anxious thoughts. Id.
By July 16, 2016, Plaintiff reported that her skin was 90% cleared up. Tr.
558.
The mental status exam revealed mild anxiety, no suicidal or homicidal
ideation, plan, or intent, and no evidence of formal thought disorder. Tr. 559. Her
thought processing and content were intact, and she had adequate fund of knowledge.
Id. Moreover, her speech was normal, and her memory was intact. Id. Plaintiff’s
vital sense, self-attitude, insight, and judgment were adequate.
Id.
Dr.
Sangiacomo’s impression was that Plaintiff was much calmer, coping with stressors,
and healing with picking. Id.
On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff exhibited a depressed mood and mild anxiety
due to situational stressors of the death of a family member and her husband’s loss
of employment. Tr. 561. Plaintiff reported walking with a friend for about one hour
six times per week. Id. Her mental status exam appeared normal except that her
vital sense and self-attitude were significantly diminished, but her insight and
judgment appeared adequate. Tr. 562.
- 13 -
By December 9, 2013, Plaintiff reported that her skin lesions had completely
cleared up and she had not been doing any picking. Tr. 564. Dr. Sangiacomo noted
this was admirable considering the fact that Plaintiff had undergone a hysterectomy
the previous month. Id. During this visit, the mental status exam showed that
Plaintiff had mild anxiety, which the doctor noted was “appropriate to ideation and
situation.”
Tr. 565.
Otherwise, the exam revealed no abnormal results.
Id.
Plaintiff’s vital sense, self-attitude, insight and judgment appeared adequate. Id.
As the Commissioner correctly points out, the above record evidence does not
reflect an inability to tolerate work stress. Although Plaintiff exhibited temporary
changes in her mood and temporary increases in skin picking behavior because of
situational stressors, these scenarios do not support a conclusion that Plaintiff has
no ability to use judgment and deal with work stress. 7 Dr. Sangiacomo’s mental
status examinations generally appeared normal, with Plaintiff’s insight and
judgment either improving or adequate. Moreover, at times Plaintiff reported doing
well despite the situational stressors. See Tr. 373, 558-59, 564.
The remainder of the records further counters Dr. Sangiacomo’s opinion. For
example, Dr. Phyllis Neef, Plaintiff’s primary care physician, noted several times
from mid-2012 through 2013 that Plaintiff was stable with her psychiatric treatment.
Tr. 380, 385-86, 500, 516-17, 525-26, 534-35. Additionally, physical examinations by
Dr. Kenneth Galang, who primarily treated Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia, consistently
Although in her testimony Plaintiff attributed her difficulty dealing with work stress to her
compulsive behavior of picking her skin to the point of infection (Tr. 39), the ALJ found
Plaintiff’s statements not credible to the extent alleged. Tr. 22, 24. Plaintiff does not argue
against this finding.
7
- 14 -
showed normal insight, judgment, orientation, memory, mood and affect. Tr. 412,
415, 418, 421, 424, 427, 430, 433, 436, 439, 442, 445, 448, 451, 454-55, 460-61, 585,
589, 593, 597, 605, 613, 617, 621, 625, 629, 632, 636, 639. This evidence does not
bolster Dr. Sangiacomo’s opined limitations.
Upon a review of the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in
reducing the weight he gave to Dr. Sangiacomo’s opinion, as the record reflects good
cause for doing so, and the ALJ articulated his reasons for doing so.
See e.g.,
Crawford, 363 F.3d 1155; Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241. To the extent Plaintiff argues
that the ALJ erred by not separately weighing certain portions of the opinion, and
separately articulating his reasons for doing so, this argument is without merit.
“[T]here is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of
evidence in his decision.” Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1211. In any event, it is clear that the
ALJ rejection of the portion of Dr. Sangiacomo’s opinion that Plaintiff has poor or no
ability to use judgment and deal with work stress was based on substantial evidence,
and thus, any error was harmless. See Newberry v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 572
F. App'x 671, 672 (11th Cir. 2014).
V.
Conclusion
Upon review of the record, the undersigned concludes that the ALJ applied the
proper legal standards, and his determination that Plaintiff is not disabled is
supported by substantial evidence.
- 15 -
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in favor of the Commissioner, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 13th day of September,
2016.
Copies to:
Counsel of record
- 16 -
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?