Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER: The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 9/6/2016. (ADM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
TONY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-889-J-MCR
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s appeal of an administrative
decision denying his applications for a period of disability, disability insurance
benefits (“DIB”), and supplemental security income (“SSI”). Plaintiff alleges his
disability began on February 15, 2012. (Tr. 46.) A hearing was held before the
assigned Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on October 22, 2013, at which
Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. (Tr. 42-60.) The ALJ found Plaintiff not
disabled from February 15, 2012 through January 2, 2014, the date of the
decision.2
In reaching the decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: disorders of the spine and osteoarthrosis. (Tr. 30.) The ALJ
1
The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States
Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 9.)
2
Plaintiff had to establish disability on or before September 30, 2012, the date
last insured, in order to be entitled to a period of disability and DIB. (Tr. 28.)
also found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform
sedentary work with limitations. (Tr. 31.)
Plaintiff is appealing the Commissioner’s decision that he was not disabled
from February 15, 2012 through January 2, 2014. Plaintiff has exhausted his
available administrative remedies and this case is properly before the Court. The
Court has reviewed the record, the briefs, and the applicable law. For the
reasons stated herein, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
I.
Standard of Review
The scope of this Court’s review is limited to determining whether the
Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, McRoberts v. Bowen, 841
F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 1988), and whether the Commissioner’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390
(1971). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir.
2004). 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 evidence
preponderates against the Commissioner’s decision. Edwards v. Sullivan, 937
F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir. 1995); Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th
Cir. 1991). The district court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into
2
account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. Foote v.
Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995); accord 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 Commissioner’s factual findings).
II.
Discussion
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred when she (1) failed to find that Plaintiff’s
migraine headaches were a severe impairment that significantly limited his ability
to work, and (2) failed to include any limitations in the RFC assessment, which
were caused by Plaintiff’s migraine headaches. The Court finds no reversible
error.
In the Eleventh Circuit, “[t]he finding of any severe impairment . . . is
enough to satisfy step two because once the ALJ proceeds beyond step two, he
is required to consider the claimant’s entire medical condition, including
impairments the ALJ determined were not severe.” Burgin v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 420 F. App’x 901, 902 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2011). Therefore, even if the ALJ
erred by not finding Plaintiff’s migraine headaches to be a severe impairment, the
error is harmless because the ALJ found at least one severe impairment. See
Heatly v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 382 F. App’x 823, 824-25 (11th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam) (“Even if the ALJ erred in not indicating whether chronic pain syndrome
was a severe impairment, the error was harmless because the ALJ concluded
that [plaintiff] had a severe impairment: and that finding is all that step two
3
requires. . . . Nothing requires that the ALJ must identify, at step two, all of the
impairments that should be considered severe.”).
At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that
Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: disorders of the spine and
osteoarthrosis. (Tr. 30.) Although the ALJ did not find Plaintiff’s migraine
headaches to be a severe impairment, she did not ignore them, as shown by her
decision. (See Tr. 31-34.)
For example, the ALJ noted Plaintiff’s testimony that he stopped working
partly because of migraine headaches, which he experiences approximately two
or three times a month, that he has been treated for them with medication, and
that he has to lie down in the dark for a day or a day-and-a-half when he has a
migraine. (Tr. 31-32.) The ALJ also noted that a December 2012 letter from Dr.
Quan Nguyen reflected that Plaintiff was housebound due to migraines, among
other conditions. (Tr. 31.) The ALJ observed, however, that this letter contained
“no objective medical findings” and the Veterans Administration did not find
Plaintiff to be housebound for rating purposes. (Id.) Further, the ALJ noted that
while Dr. Nguyen diagnosed Plaintiff with migraine headaches, among others,
and opined that Plaintiff was unable to work, he did not include any objective
medical findings or diagnostic test results to support his opinions.3 (Tr. 32-33.)
3
The ALJ also noted that other records, such as those f rom June 2013, also
include migraine headaches among Plaintiff’s active problems. (Tr. 34.)
4
In addition, the ALJ stated that during a consultative examination in March
2012, Dr. Hung Tran diagnosed Plaintiff with headaches, among other conditions,
but indicated that there was no history of injury or damage, and no abnormal
physical findings. (Tr. 33.) The ALJ found Dr. Tran’s reporting more useful than
the evidence provided by Plaintiff’s treating physician because it included
objective findings and rationale for the conclusions, as a result of which it was
given significant weight. (Id.)
Then, upon review of the medical evidence as set forth in the ALJ’s
decision, which, as shown above, included Plaintiff’s migraine headaches, the
ALJ found that the evidence did not establish that Plaintiff’s impairments prevent
him from working. (Tr. 34.) The ALJ explained: “The evidence of record shows
consistent complaints of pain throughout his body; however, such allegations are
unsupported by either physical findings or diagnostic imaging.” (Id.) The ALJ
also carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, but found no evidence
establishing that the pain was either confirmed by objective evidence or could
reasonably be expected to be present as the result of a confirmed medical
condition. (Id.) The ALJ stated:
There is no explanation supporting the alleged weakness and pain,
and diagnostic imaging does not establish the presence of any
condition which is experienced at a level of intensity and frequency
that would suggest an inability to perform all basic work activities. . . .
As set forth above, medical records show inconsistencies in findings
as well as a disparity between reported limitations and observed
activities. Dr. Tran found no objective explanation for the claimant’s
5
reported symptoms, and questioned his cooperation on examination.
...
VA medical records contain findings that his physical condition was
not incapacitating or preclusive of sedentary work, Dr. Tran’s opinion
was not suggestive of disability, and Drs. Arcega and Le opined that
he was capable of performing light exertional work with postural
limitations. Significant weight is accorded all of these opinions as
they are consistent with each other in that none of them suggest an
inability to work, and they are consistent with the objective medical
evidence of record which establishes that although the claimant has
limitations as a result of his impairments, these limitations are not
disabling in nature . . . .
(Id.)
The Court finds that the ALJ adequately considered all of Plaintiff’s
impairments, both severe and non-severe, in combination, and her findings are
supported by substantial evidence. (See, e.g., Tr. 414-17 (“Headache since
1987. No injury. MD said migraine even no test and no specialist. Patient says
not better and the headache comes every day. . . . Impression: . . . No abnormal
physical findings.”), 421 (“Allegations of migraine made . . . will not be an
accepted MDI, for it lacks the needed component to satisfy the diagnosis. It is
also noted that the treatment pattern is not consistent with migraine.”), 588
(“Migraine [headache]: ok now.”), 618 (“[Patient] reports adverse reaction with
Oxycodone and Gabapentin . . . ‘severe headache and strange dreams.’ He
stopped taking both medications on Saturday and all the above [side effects]
resolved.”), 681 (stating “no headaches”).) Although Dr. Nguyen opined that
Plaintiff was unable to work partly due to his migraine headaches, the ALJ
6
correctly observed that there was no objective support for such a conclusion. (Tr.
412.)
To the extent Plaintiff supports his argument that his headaches constitute
a severe impairment because there is evidence of a diagnosis of migraine
headaches, a mere diagnosis is insufficient to show that a condition interferes
with Plaintiff’s ability to work. See Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1213 n.6
(11th Cir. 2005) (stating “the mere existence of these impairments does not
reveal the extent to which they limit her ability to work”). The ALJ considered
Plaintiff’s impairments and incorporated into the RFC assessment only those
limitations resulting from the impairments, which she found to be supported by
the record.
III
Conclusion
The Court does not make independent factual determinations, re-weigh the
evidence, or substitute its decision for that of the ALJ. Thus, the question is not
whether the Court would have arrived at the same decision on de novo review;
rather, the Court’s review is limited to determining whether the ALJ’s findings are
based on correct legal standards and supported by substantial evidence. Based
on this standard of review, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision that
Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act for the
time period in question is due to be affirmed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
7
1.
The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment consistent with this
Order, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, on September 6, 2016.
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
8
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?