Lisa Denomme v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

518 F. App'x 875
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMay 16, 2013
Docket12-14963
StatusUnpublished
Cited by92 cases

This text of 518 F. App'x 875 (Lisa Denomme v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lisa Denomme v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 518 F. App'x 875 (11th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lisa Denomme appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. On appeal, Denomme argues that: (1) the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision is not supported by substantial evidence because he failed to state with particularity the weight he accorded certain medical opinions; (2) the ALJ’s analysis cannot be clearly inferred from his ultimate findings because the ALJ never articulated his reasons, or the particular weight he assigned to the medical opinions; and (3) the ALJ failed to include all of her limitations, particularly her moderate to severe limitations in interacting with supervisors and coworkers, in the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert (“VE”). After careful review, we affirm.

In SSA appeals, we decide whether an ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards. See Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence requires more than a scintilla of evidence, and is the relevant evidence a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. We do not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our *877 own judgment for that of the ALJ. Id. Rather, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence, we must defer to the ALJ’s decision even if the evidence may preponderate against it. See Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sea, 363 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir.2004).

Eligibility for disability insurance benefits requires that the claimant is under a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). In relevant part, a claimant is under a disability if she is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Id. § 423(d)(1)(A). The claimant bears the burden of proving her disability. Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir.2003).

In order to determine whether a claimant is disabled, the SSA applies a five-step sequential evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). This process includes an analysis of whether the claimant: (1) is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment; (3) has such an impairment that meets or equals a Listing and meets the duration requirements; (4) can perform her past relevant work, in light of her residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (5) can make an adjustment to other work, in light of her RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4).

Medical opinions, which include physician statements regarding the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments, may support the ALJ’s determination of whether a claimant suffers from a severe impairment. See id. § 404.1527(a)(2). The ALJ must consider several factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s “opinion is with the record as a whole”; and (5) the doctor’s specialization. Id. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). These factors apply to both examining and nonexamining doctors. Id. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). Upon considering medical opinions, the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Otherwise, we cannot determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, and we will not affirm simply because some rationale might have supported the AL J’s conclusion. See id.

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources ... ”). The ALJ does not have to defer to the opinion of a physician who conducted a single examination, and who was not a treating physician. See McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987). In the end, the ALJ may reject the opinion of any physician if the evidence supports a contrary conclusion. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 835 (11th Cir.1985). When, however, an incorrect application of the regulations results in harmless error because the correct application would not contradict the ALJ’s ultimate findings, the ALJ’s decision will stand. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir.1983).

In addition, the Commissioner, not a claimant’s physician, is responsible for determining whether a claimant is statutorily disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1) (noting that, a claimant’s *878 RFC is a matter reserved for the ALJ’s determination, and while a physician’s opinion on the matter will be considered, it is not dispositive). Specifically, “[a] statement by a medical source that [a claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the Commissioner] will determine that [the claimant is] disabled.” Id. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1).

At the fifth step of the disability analysis, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that, in light of the claimant’s RFC and other factors, there exist in the national economy a significant number of jobs that the claimant can perform. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1180; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If such jobs exist, then the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). An ALJ may make this determination by posing hypothetical questions to a vocational expert. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1180.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
518 F. App'x 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lisa-denomme-v-commissioner-social-security-administration-ca11-2013.