USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13606 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
JULIE WINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-25252-MGC ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13606
Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Julie Wines appeals the district court’s affirmance of the So- cial Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her claim for disa- bility insurance benefits (“DIB”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Wines argues that the Social Security Commissioner (the “Com- missioner”) did not satisfy its burden in step five of the sequential analysis of establishing that there are other jobs that exist in signif- icant numbers in the national economy that she could perform. Second, she argues that the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) re- sidual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding was not supported by the substantial evidence of record. Finally, Wines argues that the ALJ did not properly assess her symptoms and limitations. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. I. “In Social Security appeals, we review de novo the legal prin- ciples upon which the Commissioner’s decision is based,” but “we review the resulting decision only to determine whether it is sup- ported by substantial evidence.”. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). Under the substantial evidence stand- ard, a court “looks to an existing administrative record and asks whether it contains ‘sufficien[t] evidence’ to support the agency’s factual determinations.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 3 of 8
21-13606 Opinion of the Court 3
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. (quoting Consolidated Edison, 305 U.S. at 229. However, “the ALJ has a basic obligation to develop a full and fair record.” Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997). If in light of the record as a whole, substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s de- cision, we will not disturb it. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). Under this standard of review, we will not decide the facts anew, make credibility determinations, or reweigh the ev- idence. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). To make a disability determination, an ALJ must engage in a five-step sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). In step four, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s RFC and her ability to return to her past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). The regulations de- fine RFC as that which the individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by her impairments. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). A claimant bears the burden at the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five, where she must prove that other jobs exist in the national economy that the claim- ant can perform, considering her RFC, age, education, and work experience. Goode v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 966 F.3d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 2020). “If the Commissioner makes this showing, ‘the USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13606
burden shifts back to the claimant to prove she is unable to perform the jobs suggested.’” Id. at 1279 (quoting Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987)). At step five, the ALJ may determine whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform by either applying the medical-vocational guidelines or by obtaining the testimony of a vocational expert. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1180. For a vocational expert’s testimony to constitute substan- tial evidence, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical question that com- prises all of the claimant’s impairments. Id. However, a hypothet- ical question may explicitly or implicitly account for the limitation. See id. at 1181. Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that, based on Wines’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, jobs existed in the national economy in significant numbers that she could perform. Accordingly, we conclude that Commissioner met her burden in step five of the required analysis. II. Eligibility for DIB requires that the claimant be disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). The individual seeking social security dis- ability benefits bears the burden of proving that she is disabled. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. A claimant is disabled if she cannot en- gage in a substantial gainful activity because of a medically deter- minable impairment that can be expected to result in death, or that USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 5 of 8
21-13606 Opinion of the Court 5
has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The ALJ considers medical opinions from acceptable medi- cal sources, which include licensed physicians and licensed psy- chologists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a). The ALJ must state with par- ticularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons, therefore. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Thus, we will not affirm merely because some rationale supports the ALJ’s conclu- sion if he fails to state with at least some measure of clarity the grounds for his decision. Id. The Commissioner, not a claimant’s physician, is responsi- ble for determining whether the claimant is statutorily disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). A medical source’s opinion that a claimant is disabled is not dispositive of a disability claim because the deter- mination is reserved to an ALJ acting on behalf of the Commis- sioner. Id.; Walker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 987 F.3d 1333, 1339 (11th Cir. 2021).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13606 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
JULIE WINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-25252-MGC ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13606
Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Julie Wines appeals the district court’s affirmance of the So- cial Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her claim for disa- bility insurance benefits (“DIB”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Wines argues that the Social Security Commissioner (the “Com- missioner”) did not satisfy its burden in step five of the sequential analysis of establishing that there are other jobs that exist in signif- icant numbers in the national economy that she could perform. Second, she argues that the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) re- sidual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding was not supported by the substantial evidence of record. Finally, Wines argues that the ALJ did not properly assess her symptoms and limitations. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. I. “In Social Security appeals, we review de novo the legal prin- ciples upon which the Commissioner’s decision is based,” but “we review the resulting decision only to determine whether it is sup- ported by substantial evidence.”. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). Under the substantial evidence stand- ard, a court “looks to an existing administrative record and asks whether it contains ‘sufficien[t] evidence’ to support the agency’s factual determinations.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 3 of 8
21-13606 Opinion of the Court 3
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. (quoting Consolidated Edison, 305 U.S. at 229. However, “the ALJ has a basic obligation to develop a full and fair record.” Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997). If in light of the record as a whole, substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s de- cision, we will not disturb it. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). Under this standard of review, we will not decide the facts anew, make credibility determinations, or reweigh the ev- idence. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). To make a disability determination, an ALJ must engage in a five-step sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). In step four, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s RFC and her ability to return to her past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). The regulations de- fine RFC as that which the individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by her impairments. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). A claimant bears the burden at the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five, where she must prove that other jobs exist in the national economy that the claim- ant can perform, considering her RFC, age, education, and work experience. Goode v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 966 F.3d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 2020). “If the Commissioner makes this showing, ‘the USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13606
burden shifts back to the claimant to prove she is unable to perform the jobs suggested.’” Id. at 1279 (quoting Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987)). At step five, the ALJ may determine whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform by either applying the medical-vocational guidelines or by obtaining the testimony of a vocational expert. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1180. For a vocational expert’s testimony to constitute substan- tial evidence, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical question that com- prises all of the claimant’s impairments. Id. However, a hypothet- ical question may explicitly or implicitly account for the limitation. See id. at 1181. Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that, based on Wines’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, jobs existed in the national economy in significant numbers that she could perform. Accordingly, we conclude that Commissioner met her burden in step five of the required analysis. II. Eligibility for DIB requires that the claimant be disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). The individual seeking social security dis- ability benefits bears the burden of proving that she is disabled. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. A claimant is disabled if she cannot en- gage in a substantial gainful activity because of a medically deter- minable impairment that can be expected to result in death, or that USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 5 of 8
21-13606 Opinion of the Court 5
has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The ALJ considers medical opinions from acceptable medi- cal sources, which include licensed physicians and licensed psy- chologists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a). The ALJ must state with par- ticularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons, therefore. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Thus, we will not affirm merely because some rationale supports the ALJ’s conclu- sion if he fails to state with at least some measure of clarity the grounds for his decision. Id. The Commissioner, not a claimant’s physician, is responsi- ble for determining whether the claimant is statutorily disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). A medical source’s opinion that a claimant is disabled is not dispositive of a disability claim because the deter- mination is reserved to an ALJ acting on behalf of the Commis- sioner. Id.; Walker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 987 F.3d 1333, 1339 (11th Cir. 2021). Although a claimant may provide a state- ment containing a physician’s opinion of her remaining capabili- ties, the ALJ evaluates such a statement in light of the other evi- dence presented. See 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(d), 404.1545(a)(3). State agency medical or psychological consultants are con- sidered experts in social security disability evaluation, and the ALJ must consider and assign weight to their opinions in the same man- ner as other medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (e). However, these one-time examiners are not considered “treating physicians,” and thus, their opinions are not entitled to deference. USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 6 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13606
McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987). The weight to be given to a non-examining physician’s opinion depends on, among other things, the extent to which it is consistent with other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). When reviewing the re- port of a consultative examiner, the ALJ considers whether the re- port provides evidence that serves as an adequate basis for deci- sion-making, is internally consistent, and is consistent with other information available. Id. § 404.919p(a)(1)–(3). Here, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Wines was not disabled from December 21, 2015. The consultative examiner’s report was consistent with Wines’s medical records that showed she exhibited symptoms of depression and anxiety, but fair concentration and grossly intact memory, such that she possessed an RFC to perform jobs that ex- isted in the national economy in significant numbers. III. To establish a disability based on the testimony of pain and other symptoms, the claimant must show: “(1) evidence of an un- derlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical ev- idence confirming the severity of the alleged symptoms; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be ex- pected to give rise to the claimed [symptoms].” Wilson v. Barn- hart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ must consider whether inconsistencies ex- ist within the evidence or between the claimant’s statements and the evidence including the claimant’s history, medical signs, and USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 7 of 8
21-13606 Opinion of the Court 7
statements by medical sources or other sources about how her symptoms affect her. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). The ALJ may use symptoms to diminish the claimant’s capacity for basic work activ- ities to the extent that their alleged functional limitations and re- strictions due to symptoms can reasonably be accepted as con- sistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. Id. The ALJ considers medical opinions from acceptable medi- cal sources, which include licensed physicians and licensed psy- chologists. Id. § 404.1502(a). Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnoses and prognoses, and the claimant’s physical or mental re- strictions. Id. § 404.1527(a)(1). When weighing medical opinion evidence, the ALJ considers many factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, and whether an opinion is consistent with the rec- ord. Id. § 404.1527(c); Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1260 (11th Cir. 2019). The ALJ must provide explicit, adequate reasons for discred- iting subjective testimony. Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225. The ALJ’s failure to articulate the reasons for discrediting subjective testi- mony requires, as a matter of law, that the testimony be accepted as true. Id. However, we will not disturb a clearly stated credibility determination that substantial evidence supports. Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014). USCA11 Case: 21-13606 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 8 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 21-13606
Here, we find that the ALJ articulated explicit, adequate rea- sons for discrediting Wines’s subjective testimony, as he provided an overview of her representations of her symptoms in her testi- mony before determining her representations of the intensity, per- sistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were “not entirely consistent” with the record. **** Accordingly, we affirm the SSA’s denial of Wines’s claim for DIB. AFFIRMED.